Rob Buckley

a hundred and two quid on Amazon

RAF not allowing access to the airfield.

Q21 is four, maybe five questions in one. With explanations required. So it needs several answers and lots of words to explain. Q22 is two questions in one. With explanations required. Here's a video of somebody (in Australia) flying a model aircraft. Trying to write a definition of what a model aircraft is, is a hiding to nothing. It's the aeromodeller flying something that makes that 'something' a model aircraft.

If you read the consultation, at the bottom of page 27 it says about the implementation of geo-awareness and geo-fencing- 'We do not expect the requirements to apply to Model Aircraft (including C4 UAS), privately built UAS or C0 UAS without cameras' Agree, as the proposal is not to apply geo-awareness and geo-fencing to model aircraft.

23 and 24 are the CAA proposing to not enforce Geo-awareness or geo-fencing on model aircraft, which we agree with as it is disproportionate.

No, there's not been an LMA show at Tibenham for a few years now.

We're not making a massive deal at this stage, as unless you're flying at one of the four clubs in the trial there's nothing to see. There's been more publicity in manned aircraft land, as they will hopefully see the transmissions from the machines we're using. Once the trial is over and some results come in we'll be able to say more of what's been found and what it all means. Individual aircraft remote ID is a terrible idea for model aircraft, but driven by the police in their pursuit of naughtiness rather than any form of aviation safety. Simon, I'm afraid I don't know about internal comms in your club, as far as I was aware the full committee was consulted in April.

It's the associations that need to pay the Article 16 fees to the CAA, not individual members or clubs. An association Article 16 applies to all model aircraft flown by the members of that association. The fee depends on whether it's an initial application, unchanged annual renewal or a renewal with additional responsibilities / changes to what can be done. The CAA has delegated site / display permissions to the BMFA & LMA, so clubs don't need to go tot he CAA direct any more. Over 25kg models with their own specific authorisation are the only thing that an individual modeller needs to pay the CAA for, and they are the item above the Article 16 section.

Talk to Paul at https://www.turbinesolutions.co.uk/ they took over Wren

I'm quoting an email from the AAIB, that is the interim agreement for model aircraft reporting under article 16 authorisation until we can get to discuss & agree on the most appropriate reporting regime.

We're still awaiting a meeting with the AAIB, but in the meantime, despite what it says in the Article 16 Authorisation, the agreement with the AAIB for model association members is to 'not report anything to the AAIB other than accidents & serious incidents that involve a model aircraft and result in a Fatality or Serious Injury'. The AAIB are aiming to align both their UAS and Model aircraft reporting processes to ensure that there is consistency and to deal with those events which could have a benefit to ongoing flight safety. All being well we'll be having a meeting with the AAIB this month to agree on what reasonably needs to be reported for model aircraft to not waste everyone's time.

I've done a fair bit of bench testing with arduino signal quality checkers and range testing with the V2.1 on QX7 and X10 transmitters with RX8R pro and X8R receivers. I didn't see any problems at all and all the telemetry worked properly. The RCG thread seems to have gone into the depths of the G series receivers, but I have no experience at all of them.

If you type 'how model servo works' into google you get things like **LINK**

Thanks David!   Elvington will be with us soon on the weekend of 12-13 October. Advance discounted tickets are still available on the LMA website shop (discounts end Wednesday 9 October) Edited By Rob Buckley on 06/10/2019 12:43:14

New Date is confirmed as 12-13 October Rob Buckley, LMA Secretary

LMA Elvington this weekend has been postponed due to the poor weather forecast and issued weather warnings. Please do not travel to the show this weekend. We are working hard on an alternative date, more details to follow. Rob Buckley, LMA Secretary

The Frome Model Flying Club are hosting their Easter Swapmeet on Sunday 8 April 2018 from 09:00 – 12:30 at The Conygre Hall, North Road, Timsbury, Bath, BA2 0JQ. Tea, coffee and bacon rolls will be available. Entry is £1 per person and tables are free. Pre-booking required for tables, and entry from 08:30 for sellers. For more information and booking please contact Rob Buckley 07791 278292 [email protected]

The working group the CAA are running has the aim of enabling technology (using the increasing power and reducing cost of computing 'muscle' that makes the low-level general aviation airspace safer for everyone who uses it. If an electronic conspicuity machine was free, are there any modellers that wouldn't use it to make themselves electronically visible to fullsize aircraft, and have fullsize aircraft electronically visible to them? If not, why not? Whether flying alone or in a club has no bearing on the concept, if it's just an issue of price. There's no particular reason why, with some development, such technology couldn't be in every model radio control transmitter, and effectively automatic in use. Edited By Rob Buckley on 14/09/2017 18:55:35

Posted by Steve J on 14/09/2017 08:48:40: So, how many people are using the Drone Assist app to tell NATS where you are playing with your toys? **LINK** Steve It's quite a funky app, that gives airspace information, pertinent NOTAM's and weather information. It is aimed at folk doing recreational / commercial 'drone' flying rather than model flyers, but doesn't give real time electronic conspicuity that this current project is aimed at. It does generate some interesting maps of where dorne flying activity is being reported to be taking place though.

Posted by Jon Laughton on 14/09/2017 08:42:28: Rob thanks for this information; is your involvement with the CAA coordinated with the BMFA's involvement with the new EASA prototype rules? Jon Yes, and coordinated with the LMA's involvement with the new EASA prototype rules, the CAA and the DfT.

Posted by Martin Harris on 14/09/2017 00:51:48: I thought that one of the main suggestions coming out of the EASA exercise was that flying sites would be identified and registered? This sort of electronic solution would be ideal for lone or casual flyers but these are the most unlikely users to be in a position to use them. Operated legally, smaller (under 7kg) gliders probably present the most difficult case - as we should know, all models above 7kg can't be operated anywhere over 400' above launch height without arranging permission. Edited By Martin Harris on 14/09/2017 00:53:25 No. The EASA proposal give the option to have designated model flying areas, but the intention is not to monitor, register and define all model flying sites. Even if they were, an electronic machine would make all aircraft in the vicinity aware when the model flying site was active and models were in the sky. Glider sites & winches are marked on the CAA charts, and pilots still try flying through them.

Posted by ChrisB on 13/09/2017 23:24:38: Thanks for the information Rob. A published NOTAM on the **LINK** or equivalent is probably the most realistic in the short term. That assumes that pilots of full size have checked the NOTAM. Any electronic devices will be good but again that's ok if all full size aircraft are equipped with compatible receiving equipment. Our club flies in uncontrolled airspace (Surface to 4500ft) and from a microlight strip. Within around a 10 mile radius there are about six microlight grass strips and a larger grass airfield. We also get lots of general aviation traffic and some military. As we sit between two international airports, the GA traffic funnels along the open airway which is about 6 miles wide. Most of the aircraft we get in our area are microlights, ranging from cheap flex-wings to more sophisticated 3 axis aircraft. We also see the usual Cessna's etc. Do/are/will all aircraft have the suitable equipment to detect flying sites? That is the key question. Cheers CB The CAA don't want to issue repetitive NOTAM's for model flying. That's why some sites that have regular use of large models have had NOTAM's as a trial and are being put on the air charts. That relies on pilots reading the chart and knowing exactly where they are, but the electronic technology that the CAA is trying to encourage all full-size aircraft to use will give warnings of proximity to hazardous areas automatically.

Posted by i12fly on 13/09/2017 21:58:20: But isn't this all covered by the stipulation of heights? With EASA's height restriction of 120m we will not clash with full size unless they (or we) are breaking regulations? Hobbyist flying is looking to be getting very expensive. Incidentally what happens with free flight? Some military flying is very low level, and there have been airproxes reported by them flying under models. The 120m proposed by EASA should not be an absolute height limit for model flying, the aim is to have model flying limits as per today, with specific permissions for greater height limits as necessary. It depends on how expensive 'very expensive' is. Under £200 using today's technology for a flying site isn't a massive expense. Free flight would work very well with a ground-based unit at the launch site, provided they are fitted with dethermalisers and limited fuel so they don;t fly outside the electronic 'bubble'.

The CAA has made a public statement on the future of electronic conspicuity in general aviation and launched a survey here- **LINK** Although the survey doesn’t include model flying, please fill it in if you also fly full-size aircraft and haven’t already done, or if just interested. How does this involve us model flyers? Well, I’m on the CAA working group for electronic conspicuity representing model flyers, as it’s better to be involved than have something foisted on us from out of the proverbial blue. It also shows the intent from our side that we are responsible users of airspace, and are keen to be involved with improving aviation safety. And now I come to it, what is electronic conspicuity? Similar to the very expensive TCAS systems that airliners have, there is a desire to have smaller aircraft fitted with machinery that will make them visible to each other electronically so that the pilots can be warned they might be about to his something without relying solely on seeing it out of the window, either with an audio 'bandits 3 o'clock high' a visible warning on a moving map display, or both. Based on this, there are also clear benefits to having model aircraft electronically visible to other airspace users, to reduce the risk of midair collisions, and models / full-size getting too close to each other. This helps from both the perspective that none of us wants to have our models in a midair collision / near miss with a full-size aircraft, but also from the perceived threat that ‘drones’ are to full-size aircraft. If full-size aircraft can ‘see’ us electronically and be given traffic warnings of model aircraft, they are less likely to be agitating for models to be lumped with ‘drones’ and banned as a menace to manned aviation. Having every single model fitted with a transponder is clearly not going to work (even though the technology exists – at around £2000 per model it’s on the spendy side!), but having the model flying site itself electronically visible would serve the purpose. There is a widespread expectation in full-size aviation circles that whenever model flying takes place a NOTAM is published to warn full-size aircraft of the presence of the models, and some surprise when explained that this isn’t the case. This then leads to proximity reports being filed by full-size aircraft when they are surprised to find models flying. Some model flying sites are now marked on the full-size aviation charts, but aren’t in operation all the time, and rely on the full-size pilots both noticing and knowing exactly where they are.. A ground-based solution that creates an electronic ‘bubble’ around the model flying site is currently seen as the best way forward, so any aircraft that is potentially going to fly into he ‘bubble’ of model flying would be given a warning, and the ability to steer around the area. The ground machinery could also give a warning to the model flyers of approaching full-size traffic, and give them the opportunity to move out of the aircraft’s path. I’m currently speaking to manufacturers of the equipment about the potential of a ground based device that would generate a ‘Temporary NOTAM’ of model flying, with the aim to have a cheap, simple solution that could be used at flying sites (temporary or permanent) to make the model flying electronically visible. The same equipment could also be used for ground-based operations that project into the sky, such as large kite gatherings, glider winch cables etc., and the CAA working group is aimed at adapting the rules to make electronic conspicuity equipment available and attractive to use. There’s no intent to mandate any of this, but there are those who would like to see electronic identification of all unmanned aircraft. Having a working solution in place that addresses safety concerns would be a good defence against such mandated burdens on our current model flying freedoms. Any questions or comments, please let me know. Also, don’t forget that the window to comment on EASA’s proposed rules for unmanned aircraft closes on the 15th (this Friday), so if you’ve not commented there is still time. **LINK** Rob Buckley LMA Secretary

Don't forget, it's not just the BMFA doing the lobbying.