Jump to content

This Looks very Worrying


EssexBOF

Recommended Posts

Phil.Taylor

Love the way this thread is going 😊

Now we have to be BMFA members to fly - lets all go retro & nostalgia - just like in the BMFA news - balsa bashing - tissue & dope - rubber motors?

Phil.

longtime balsa basher...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Phil.Taylor said:

just like in the BMFA news - balsa bashing - tissue & dope - rubber motors?

Not everything in the BMFA News is like that, Phil!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, pete beadle said:

.....and don't forget, you don't have to fly a tissue covered, balsa and ply machines, I'd be perfectly happy to see a few more MPX models with glass fuselages and white foam wings.......Flamingos, Kranich's, Juniors etc ,,,,,,.... maybe even a Mark 1 Alpina or two........

I'm restoring 2 Multiplex Kranich, a Flamingo 2001 and an Alpina and although it will be a full on winter job to get them back to 'factory fresh' condition I hope to have them flying next season.

Still looking for a Multiplex Alpha, Fiests SF and LS3 if anyone has one or knows of one. I am happy with buying restoration project condition ones or unbuilt kits if they are still around.

David.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Pete Beadle they were great days, and peaceful, without rules (other than transmitter pennants)

40 years ago I had to drive for 10mins to slope soar or the local power club. 30 years ago I had to walk out of my back garden to fly. Though with a Cox TD on my glider I launched from the garden, but landed in the field.

30 years ago I read a magazine (where comps were all listed) and just went. Usually there was a land line number to ring.

40 years ago I had no desire to travel to foreign comps, 30 years ago it was possible, but I certainly didn't bother.

I would turn up at a comp and try my best and if there was a better model that put me at a disadvantage I would go and buy one. There was no need for the best model on the planet, just one better than those at the comp.

I did have a small hardship buying from Russia and other places, but HSBC bank smoothed the way.

I have never been a tissue fan, but made my first glass pod 45 years ago. 30 years ago I was using unidirectional carbon and kevlar. It was more like 25 years ago that I was vacking it onto foam cores.

I was going to say I don't like looking back, but I have just finished a Radio Queen from 1949 ….. oh, and a couple of home designed built up REF 2m models. Laser cut ribs just have to be better than sandwiches.

However, “this connected world” can be irritating …... My Ava, Maxa and Perfection are now dated, to say nothing of my Simply the Best chuck glider.

30 years ago models were in the hands of the people with the skill to build them and fly them. Then it was in the hands of those that could buy them and fly them. Now there are a lot in the hands of those that can just about read the instruction book.

Gresham was right...... Bad modellers drive out good.

Yes I do miss the good old days, where you sat on the side of a hill or in a field and talked of the advantages of so and so. Then went away and built something to prove it.

 

25161348_StBtop(Medium).thumb.JPG.b088947ef62bd14ef2fcb67fe63b9076.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil.Taylor
2 hours ago, pete beadle said:

Hi Phil

I'm hoping to have both the Frank Zaic  Thermic 100" and the "Nymph" ready to go too......can't wait..........

Regards

Pete

BARCS 1702

Pete - that lovely looking old-timer needs an update - you need to add your BMFA number !

Phil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pete beadle said:

Please don't forget you have an open invitation to ISA Nostalgia Day on the 8th September 2018..........it would be a great pleasure to me, to see you there

Not wishing to derail this thread, but please publicise widely Pete. I'm keen to attend (as I'm sure are many more) this year if the conditions play ball....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

News article on CAA website -

http://www.caa.co.uk/News/New-drone-laws-come-into-effect-today-as-public-demands-regulation-increase-to-ensure-safer-flying/

Quote

CAA research shows new drone regulations are supported by the UK public and drone users alike

The only thing that I can find on the research mentioned is this summary on the dronesafe site -

http://dronesafe.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CAA6952_Dronesafe_Research_Report1.pdf

I would love to know who the 350+ drone users questioned by the survey were.

Steve 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pete beadle said:

Hi all
I’m pretty sure some people thought I'm scaremongering when I said that the BMFA have now tied us to drone users whether we like it or not……
So, now have a look at today's banner headline on the BMFA website.......and see the  masthead ad for "dronepilot academy"
Apparently, for a mere £195.00 plus VAT any drone pilot member of BMFA "get to the next level" of drone aerial photography by attending a seminar, obviously backed (condoned?) by BMFA to make better use of his drone as an aerial photography platform.......REALLY?
This is the first confirmation of how the BMFA is now adding an income stream based on drones, for its members....what next you ask?......probably a BMFA employee answering questions on TV, or radio saying "See? We are providing training, insurance and seminars for our valued drone flying members, so everything's fine now"
Until, that is, the first crop of court cases defending people who DON'T want the intrusion into their lives that camera-carrying drones provide.......don't worry, the accidents, the drone crashes in crowded urban areas, WILL be following soon now, WE ARE going to get the blame.......and, from the general public’s viewpoint, rightly so
BMFA have now ruined any chance that conventional model plane users could say "Nothing to do with us"
The BMFA has put us squarely in the centre of the target area for when drone pilots start misbehaving.......thanks a bunch BMFA!
Regards
Pete

Pete, clearly no amount of communication from the BMFA or anyone else regarding the rationale for how we reached this point will persuade you from this view; you believe drone pilots would be better on the outside of the tent weeing inwards. That is fair enough, but if it really is such a strong held view you should give up your BMFA membership - no amount of complaining here is going to change their position.

Ultimately the BMFA understand that whilst the ANO does not differentiate between conventional LOS model aircraft and multirotor SUAs ("drones")* then there is no value in excluding multirotors from the association. In that scenario all BMFA members still operate under the same legislation, but have no influence over those who fly drones. I severely doubt whether there would have been an exemption for flying over 400ft if one or more of the MFAs with a long standing safety record had not been prepared to offer membership to multirotor pilots.

* New 400ft exemption excepted; I still can't quite believe how the result we ended up with that result. If the authorities always wanted to differentiate multirotors from every other SUA why did they not use the definitions they applied in the exemption in the ANO itself, thus rendering an exemption unnecessary? Bizarre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All, I use both F5J models, fixed wing electric planes and drones and am happy if the BMFA lends its weight to regulating the use of drones, hopefully generating similar tests to those for the use of Silent Flight, or Powered models - A cert B cert etc.

The main issue, as I see it - and this is only my opinion, is that anyone can purchase and fly a drone, without any governance and due to their [drones] exceptional platforms for flight stability, they are reasonably easy to control.  the same cannot be said for fixed wing aircraft.  This means any idiot, and I include myself in that statement, can fly one without any or much tuition.

There are several commercial examinations (http://commercialdronetraining.co.uk/) for the use of drones, and if the BMFA has its head screwed on correctly - which I am sure it has, then they will get into this side too and generate even more revenue and influence in this growing area of model flight.

I can only imagine, as part of the negotiations, and I am reasonably experienced in negotiating, that the BMFA had to make some concession towards the use of drones and their oversight.  So any move to do this and regulate this side of the hobby is a good thing, especially when the net result was to give us the freedom to continue in our part of the hobby reasonably unrestricted.

To have ignored this and not moved, would probably have resulted in us all having a 400 foot ceiling, which from my side would have destroyed a hobby I love and would not want to be deprived of.

I for one, would not be adverse to the Gov setting a certification requirement on the use of all model aircraft, requiring that cert to fly lawfully. That way you would need to eother join the BMFA or gain that certification / insurance through another avenue and make enforcement relatively simple on all model aircraft..

I am not looking for a debate or argument, just giving my 2 penny worth to the conversation.

I am very grateful to the BMFA for their efforts here and for one am disappointed at my own nervousness in relation to their efforts.  Thank you BMFA and keep up the good work.

regards

Eamon

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, MattyB said:

* New 400ft exemption excepted; I still can't quite believe how the result we ended up with that result. If the authorities always wanted to differentiate multirotors from every other SUA why did they not use the definitions they applied in the exemption in the ANO itself, thus rendering an exemption unnecessary?

The way that they have done it more or less fits the EASA model. AN(A)O 2018 is a step on the road to the open category and the permission is an operational authorisation for the associations. The bits that I don't understand are putting registration off until Q4 next year and the absence of anything on electronic identification in the consultation.

Steve 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Buster46 said:

I for one, would not be adverse to the Gov setting a certification requirement on the use of all model aircraft, requiring that cert to fly lawfully.

ANO articles 94E and 94F.

Steve

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 27 July 2018 at 14:03, pete beadle said:

....  Just thought I'd remind everyone how peaceful it used to be, before we had to worry about breaking the rules........:(

There always were rules - about endangering aircraft, property and people etc, etc - but there was general ignorance of them.  Thanks to work that has been going on since 2003  at some level, since 2015 at a high level, and is continuing now, we have the exemption we have for our model flying. The BMFA has been involved throughout and David Phipps the CEO, continues to be involved at the highest level in the Europe-wide negotiations that continue.  Potential future changes are monitored constantly. 

The new more-detailed rules (where BMFA members have the exemption) are a result of  the uncontrolled and wide distribution of potent gadgets to the general public in the absence of any effective general knowledge of , or enforcement of, the original rules.  BMFA tried to counter this - remember the 'drone-aware' leaflets.

The inclusion of all SUAs under one heading was imposed on the BMFA, and every other European model flying organisation, from the outside.  BMFA have achieved the exemption which makes the distinction you wanted.

In spite of the relentless, often uninformed and insulting, incoming sniper fire, the BMFA are continuing to work to protect our flying.

I'd be amazed if insurance wasn't available elsewhere - but at what cost? -  and without the vast BMFA experience to back it up.  You could theoretically go direct to the CAA for your own exemption as well, but 'snowflakes in hell' spring to mind.

BUT, as a BMFA member you get - 'insurance and much more' - and you can benefit from the exemption.

Now that the pressure has relented slightly, I hope Davd Phipps can find the time to write-up the story so far for BMFA News.

This model flyer is very grateful for what has been achieved.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I knew from the first that the BMFA were a toothless shambles of an organisation but they, as far as I know, are also the sole provider of the insurance I couldn’t and wouldn’t fly without.......  "

Yet this "toothless shambles of an organisation", along with the other organisations, have got us exemption from the 400' max altitude restriction.

Getting tired of the BMFA sniping. They do a great job, with the resources they have, and I for one will be eternally grateful that they were there, with their expertise and legal back up, when my club and its members needed them.

We are having the best flying summer for decades and it makes sense to make the most of it and enjoy our activity with the rules as they pretty much always have been.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave/Mike

Very well said.. we would be in a far worse situation without the BMFA. I think that for the relative pittance we pay for our annual subs the service provided it is an absolute bargain..

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, mikef said:

There always were rules - about endangering aircraft, property and people etc, etc - but there was general ignorance of them.  Thanks to work that has been going on since 2003  at some level, since 2015 at a high level, and is continuing now, we have the exemption we have for our model flying. The BMFA has been involved throughout and David Phipps the CEO, continues to be involved at the highest level in the Europe-wide negotiations that continue.  Potential future changes are monitored constantly. 

The new more-detailed rules (where BMFA members have the exemption) are a result of  the uncontrolled and wide distribution of potent gadgets to the general public in the absence of any effective general knowledge of , or enforcement of, the original rules.  BMFA tried to counter this - remember the 'drone-aware' leaflets.

The inclusion of all SUAs under one heading was imposed on the BMFA, and every other European model flying organisation, from the outside.  BMFA have achieved the exemption which makes the distinction you wanted.

In spite of the relentless, often uninformed and insulting, incoming sniper fire, the BMFA are continuing to work to protect our flying.

I'd be amazed if insurance wasn't available elsewhere - but at what cost? -  and without the vast BMFA experience to back it up.  You could theoretically go direct to the CAA for your own exemption as well, but 'snowflakes in hell' spring to mind.

BUT, as a BMFA member you get - 'insurance and much more' - and you can benefit from the exemption.

Now that the pressure has relented slightly, I hope Davd Phipps can find the time to write-up the story so far for BMFA News.

This model flyer is very grateful for what has been achieved.

As I was at the meeting yesterday, at the BMFA headquarters, as part o BARCS Committee plus the originator of this thread, i can fully concur with what Mike has written.

I was really enlightened by Dave Phipps presentation, which explained in great detail of all the negotiations that had been going on since 2003!! but has been more intense since 2015. I had no idea of the existence of the E M F G (European Model Flying Groups) for instance .

As the thread has degenerated in recent posts away from the original point, as do most threads when they run for a long time,  it might be a good Idea if it were removed by Austin and a new one started at a later date as we move on under what appears to be a resolution to the intital problem.

Remember "What the Romans did for us" from Monty python. We could substitute BMFA for Romans and say without their imput we would be in a far worse place from today. They are not perfect and have been  critic of them in the past, but in this instance, they need more praise from all as to what has been achieved.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Topic locked. For historical purposes I won't delete it, but it will eventually drop away.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Austin locked and unfeatured this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • 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.