Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bear

Model Flying and the National Trust

Recommended Posts

Bear

Right I am sending a letter to NT as a NT member any comments would be appreciated.

I am given to understand that Redruth And District Model Flying Club or members thereof are seeking to obtain permission to fly electric powered models from St Agnes Head in Cornwall. As regular users of St Agnes Head for non powered flight I am writing to register my objections to this proposal.

1. Electric powered model can be noisy. This is especially true of the electric powered jets and Hotliner type models that have been flown by some RDMFC members over the last year. As a member of the NT who often goes to St Agnes just to enjoy the peace and tranquillity there I do not want it disturbed by noisy models.

2. At present the use of St Agnes Head by modellers is naturally restricted by the prevailing wind and its strength. In effect it can only be used when the wind is SW to North. If permission is given for powered flight then the site could be used 365 days a year, with the resultant increase in traffic and damage to the environment.

3. Slope soaring requires by its definition to be carried out over or in front of the slope. In effect this means that 95% of slope soaring happens safely over the sea. Power flying will allow models to fly anywhere at St Agnes.

4. At present the glider flyers that fly at St Agnes effectively police the site by advising those modellers who turn up with powered models very politely that NT does not allow powered models to be flown. This has not been an issue over the past few years until R&DMFC started to insist they would fly their powered models. Obviously it is very simple to advise of a no power rule but if power assisted gliders are permitted then it will be much more difficult to identify what should and should not be flown at St Agnes.

5. The national agreement between the National Trust and the BMFA precludes the use of powered aircraft on NT sites. RDMFC are at present not complying to these rules and further are abusive to anyone who advises them of said rules. As their members have shown complete disregard for the present rules we do not believe they would stick to any future agreement especially if there is any ambiguity in the rules.

6. Such is the nature of model gliders the wind must be on the correct slope for them to fly. There are 3 slopes at St Agnes. Because of the way in which our RC systems work some of them require that no one else is on the same channel this is easy to police when everyone is on the same slope. By allowing powered models there is a much greater increase in the chance of a out of control glider crashing and causing damage or injury.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phil.Taylor

counter petition from BARCS members maybe? (especially those who are also NT members) Phil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
isoaritfirst

Firstly,

 

This thread needs to move to the main board.

 

Its not a BARCS internal issue - it effects every UK BMFA member and adversly effects all Glider pilots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bear

Ive had a long discussion with Manny Williamson today. He was not happy that details of our conversation had been published on this forum and believed that I had not made a true representation of the facts. I offered to amend any details that we agreed were not correct and issue an apology, after much discussion my comments stand. I would however like to point out that Manny rang me as soon as he was asked to by the office. He was not asked to however for 2 days hence the delay in my obtaining a response. I believe I have a right to illicit support, advice or even criticism from my fellow BARCS members. St Agnes is a site used by many people all across this country and indeed in other country's therefore I think it a relevant topic for the BARCS members section of the forum.

The situation with the BMFA at a national level is that Manny will consort with his colleagues and the R&DMFC and has promised to get back to me when he has further news.

I have sent a copy of my concerns as outlined above to the National Trust.

Tonight I intend to attend the BMFA sub area committee and suggest that they support a No Electric Models to be flown at St Agnes until the issue has been resolved. It is my hope they will support this and advise there members accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bear

Firstly,

 

This thread needs to move to the main board.

 

Its not a BARCS internal issue - it effects every UK BMFA member and adversly effects all Glider pilots.

I think that this would be a good time to open it up non BARCS members it may be that some of the others involved will have there say. There are always two sides to every story. Perhaps members of R&DMFC will comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
isoaritfirst

Secondly-
 
 
An open letter to Manny Wiliamson
 
Mr Williamson is very well aware of the work involved in setting up a power field. Planning consents and noise issues and neighbour consultation must take considerable time and effort.
 
Power clubs exist because of these difficulties, they take fees to support them through these difficulties and protect themselves against future issues.
 
But why should they bother if NT land is free open access to all. 
 
Or do the BMFA officers think that noise and nuisance is not a problem to the NT.
 
Gliders are seen as a peaceful tranquil kind of hobby (not always the case I know) and typically flying takes place out in front of a big hill where footfall is restricted by the topography.
 
All very different from a power field and power models which have no restriction on the airspace in which they fly.
 
The NT have it right is excluding power from their sites and it's not just about noise.
 
Slope by its nature congregates participants onto a flight line, it also concentrates the areas of flight and the points for landing.
 
Power can only be regimented into a safe area by officialdom, a power field, a safety officer, a protocol.
 
All hard to achieve when flying rough. 
 
As slope fliers our field of flight is designated by
the slope and the conditions and our safety is bolstered by the same.
 
Allow power to be rough flown and all hell will break lose.
 
In respect to the St Agnes area, If Roger was indeed policing
the site then he has it right, provided that his actions were appropriate.
 
As members of the BMFA then we all need to police each other to protect our sport. 
 
We need to advise new pilots regarding the importance of insurance and also the correct build and
maintenance of their models as well as the appropriate areas for them to be flown. If we fail to do that then we can surly no longer call ourselves an association, we become just a rabble.

 
Loving the sport and belonging to the association and encouraging others to do the same is the reason that we exist as an association.
 
If others wish to act in a way that damages that, then they need advice on how and why their actions may
damage our sport.

 
If they then fail to understand the reasoning then they as members have their opportunity to challenge those rules but they should not ride roughshod over them.
 
The BMFA officers should be wary of trying to be supportive of rough flying power models. Allow it and

clubs collapse, revenue streams dry up and officers find more time for flying.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Austin

Topic moved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oipigface

I can understand why Bear is upset about this situation, and I think he is quite right to remonstrate with people who behave badly. But if RDMFC have already applied for permission then it seems to me to be a matter for the NT and the BMFA to sort out. The fact that some RDMFC members have allegedly jumped the gun won't help their application, and I imagine that the issues that Bear raises in his letter were all well aired during the negotiations that led to the current default rule: 'No power'.

In short, I agree with Bear and admire his stand, but getting angry with the BMFA people will probably prove counter-productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bear

I can understand why Bear is upset about this situation, and I think he is quite right to remonstrate with people who behave badly. But if RDMFC have already applied for permission then it seems to me to be a matter for the NT and the BMFA to sort out. The fact that some RDMFC members have allegedly jumped the gun won't help their application, and I imagine that the issues that Bear raises in his letter were all well aired during the negotiations that led to the current default rule: 'No power'.

In short, I agree with Bear and admire his stand, but getting angry with the BMFA people will probably prove counter-productive.

Please don't think I am angry at the BMFA by the end of our conversation Manny and I both saw the others position. I just think I have a right to advise others what is happening at one of the best slopes in the country.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bear

Attended the Cornwall Sub Area BMFA meeting last night. Unfortunately as I am a country member and it was not on the Agenda I was not allowed to speak. The secretary was happy for me to address the people there but one old gentleman was adamant that he would have to "get others" to have their say. I am very tired of all the arguments so did not push the issue. Will speak to the BMFA on Monday to find out what exactly the rules are covering BMFA meetings and country members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
satinet

Why do they want to fly power models at Staggy if they already have a power field? I thought NT rules were no power only. The bmfa and gliders..... Tell them it's made of dope and tissue or got something to do with the 1950s and they might get on board with it. I would email your letter to the relevant NT person with links to what fast hotliner and fun jet models actually fly like (you tube). I think if they know the truth the problem will go away pretty quickly. Winning the battle and getting people to agree with your view point aren't the same thing - This Manny guy clearly isn't on your side, so I would forget him. (Some people find it hard to understand that electric means ALL electric models, for some reason). Pro electric on slope people always represent it as the odd gentle lady with power assist. That's not the problem it's the noisy models and the wallies who want to fly from the car park. Presumably stuff like a flight line goes out of the window when not at the club power field. It's not like there are non flyers around after all! You don't have to get the bmfa to agree with you. You have to get the NT to see the truth of the matter. All flying will get banned there once the ramblers have had enough of fun jets. Then the power guys can go back to their club fields, no problem for them. The bmfa can go back to free flight and control line award ceremonies. Lovely! Power at Staggy... Where next?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andy_B

Just be carefull of sticking ya head above the parapet with the NT ...you might be opening pandoras box

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Woodstock

The only reason I can think of for people wanting to fly power models there is that they don't like the rules and regulations at the club field.  Which makes the whole scenario even scarier  :blink: !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oipigface

Winning the battle and getting people to agree with your view point aren't the same thing - This Manny guy clearly isn't on your side, so I would forget him. (Some people find it hard to understand that electric means ALL electric models, for some reason).

You don't have to get the bmfa to agree with you. You have to get the NT to see the truth of the matter.

Tom,

You seem not to understand how the politics of these things work. The current rule: 'no power on NT land', is the result of a very long negotiation between the BMFA (primarily) and the NT. Manny Williamson is the BMFA's main man when it comes to site disputes, so as far as the NT is concerned, he Is representative of all flyers in the UK (or maybe just GB). 'Getting the NT to seethe truth of the matter' is what Manny does and the NT will more readily listen to him than to someone with an obvious grudge, no matter how right they may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slippery sloper

Tom,

You seem not to understand how the politics of these things work. The current rule: 'no power on NT land', is the result of a very long negotiation between the BMFA (primarily) and the NT. Manny Williamson is the BMFA's main man when it comes to site disputes, so as far as the NT is concerned, he Is representative of all flyers in the UK (or maybe just GB). 'Getting the NT to seethe truth of the matter' is what Manny does and the NT will more readily listen to him than to someone with an obvious grudge, no matter how right they may be.

This is not a case of " obvious grudge " suggest you get the fact`s right..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bear

Tom,

You seem not to understand how the politics of these things work. The current rule: 'no power on NT land', is the result of a very long negotiation between the BMFA (primarily) and the NT. Manny Williamson is the BMFA's main man when it comes to site disputes, so as far as the NT is concerned, he Is representative of all flyers in the UK (or maybe just GB). 'Getting the NT to seethe truth of the matter' is what Manny does and the NT will more readily listen to him than to someone with an obvious grudge, no matter how right they may be.

Jon are you suggesting I have a grudge. If that's so I would be interested to know against who or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slippery sloper

This is not a case of " obvious grudge " suggest you get the fact`s right..

 

Please note correction " respectfully  suggest you get the fact`s right "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oipigface

This is not a case of " obvious grudge " suggest you get the fact`s right..

Jon are you suggesting I have a grudge. If that's so I would be interested to know against who or what?

I think that my previous posts make it clear that I am on your side in this, Bear. Not only that, it seems to me that you have handled the situation very well. My last post was a response to Tom Satinet's suggestion that you deviate from the path you have already started down, and try to short circuit the BMFA. Doing so would make it appearto the NT that you were a man with agrudge, even though we know you are not. If I caused offence, then i) I certainly had no intention of doing so; and ii) I apologise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
satinet

That doesn't mean the gentleman (or the BMFA) is the sole arbiter of what is right or wrong though.  I also don't think it is a site dispute in the conventional sense because model flying is already allowed, with a sensible caveat.  The whole thing is a bit of joke, ***** footing aside. We are talking about one of the UK's premier slope sites; legendary for epic slope lift and people want to fly easy gliders from the car park.  I would pay not to have to fly an easy glider full stop, never mind taking one to fly electric assist off a top notch glider slope. 

 

I'm not interested in politics to be honest, I just care about RC soaring.  Sometimes I get frustrated because no one wants to call a spade a spade and actually point out the obvious facts on any issue.  It's obvious to any seasoned sloper that non modelling members of the public are generally very "on side" when it comes to glider flying in public spaces. It's equally obvious that no one like the sound of fun jets and pusher prop type zagis. 

 

Fair enough if people want to fly those models, but I do find it a hard to understand why you would want to do it off a massive slope.  Flying from the car park with no regard to flight line is just stupid, politics or not.

 

 

There's no apostrophe in 'facts' (plural), by the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bear

John no offence taken and no apology needed thanks mate. I did honestly wonder if I was coming across as having a grudge.

Tom I agree with you about calling a spade a spade, but I do have a habit of going a bit OTT about things like this, so I am trying to be diplomatic. Its now in the hands of the BMFA and the NT. Personally I think that now David Phipps will be getting involved the BMFA will not support flying powered models on NT sites.

Whilst at site I am going to keep my head down and gob shut until a decision has been made. Hopefully there will be a decision soon.

Roger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.