Guvnor

Well until someone rings up and asks we'll never know!!

"I raised this because I was taken aback by the AAIB seemingly circumventing the CAAs rules" Are they? Have you asked them if they have had a CAA exemption? I actually think it would be a complete waste of public money to force an organisation such as the AAIB to apply for a PfCO...

"Anyway - no one exempted them - they are claiming they fit under "recreational use" and thus don't need one!" How do you KNOW no one exempted them??! It IS within the CAA's remit to apply exemptions. From the CAA: "The Air Navigation Order (ANO) requires operators to hold an appropriate approval or permission for certain activities and equipment. Exemptions may be applied for and granted if the CAA is satisfied that an equivalent level of safety will be assured. Holders of approvals can also apply for a variation to any current approval or permission." From the AAIB: Under UK regulations, the AAIB is not classed as a commercial operator flying for reward so can operate drones at accident sites under the standard regulations for recreational users. The AAIB operations manual lists flight limitations and training and currency requirements for our operators. Nobody here KNOWS what discussions have taken place between the CAA and the AAIB. They obviously have an ops manual and a training regime in place. I really can't see what the problem is...

"On that basis British Airways are very experienced so let's let them off from complying with the law of the land as well! I don't think so somehow!" What that ridiculous example has to do with this is a mystery to me... Does anyone on here know what discussions took place between the AAIB and the CAA? Do any AAIB operators have BMFA certificates? PPLs? ATPLs? Many of these will absolve them of the training and test anyway. The army has operators who get paid to operate small drones over war zones. They get paid to do it. Perhaps the should have a PfCO too? Do I detect a hint of jealousy creeping in here? I have a hard-earned PfCO. I also don't see the need for them to have a PfCO. As I said above, the AAIB is a small, autonomous organisation, staffed by some of the most experienced engineers and pilots on the planet. Whover gave them dispensation not to have to have a PfCO reallises they are hardly likely to be a risk to either the public or other airspace users....

The AAIB is a small, autonomous organisation, staffed by some of the most experienced engineers and pilots on the planet. I imaging that the CAA or whover gave them dispensation not to have to have a PfCO reallises they are hardly likely to be a risk to either the public or other airspace users....

OK, I'l bite. A great day out, but: 1) I didn't think there was the variety of previous years. Where were the Bishop boys reds, the big WW11 models and others? 2) The trades stands are getting thinner. Take away the non-model stalls and food stands and it's really thin. Nothing like as bad as Long Marston a few weeks ago, but I think there needs to be some serious thinking done about getting more unusal models lying along with encouraging more trade...

I dare anyone here to ring Foss and see what he thinks...

Slopetrashuk You are missing the point here. The organiser, (One J Holliday) should do some organising and actually persuade or 'book' some well known flyers or groups to come along, not sling a few posts on Facebook and hope someone turns up. He's taking visitors hard-earned cash off them, and to provide what was on offer this weekend was appalling. I suspect he has a 'couldn't give a toss' attitude to the show, knowing it's proibably the last one... THe fact that the website trade list was 3 years old sums his attitude up.

Slopetrashuk The pilots might be young, however the demographic of the audience most certainly wasn't. If there was one complaint heard all day on Saturday it was for a) 'Nik' to shut up, and b) turn the bl**dy music down. As for pilots 'not booking in', the show organiser is well known for upsetting previous years pilots. (Me included) The clue is in the word 'organiser', he needs to do some organising, ie. get on the blower to some well known flyers and cajole them into attendning. This years plan of sitting back and hoping for the best obviously didn't work, if he tries it again next year he'll be wandering around on his own...

Posted by ChrisB on 04/06/2017 13:15:30: Did you go their this morning Guvnor? Good Lord no, I wouldn't go near his show again...

Shocking event, barely any trade stands and possibly the most boring flying show I've seen in 40 years of shows. John Holliday should hang his head in shame. Take a look at the traders list on the website. **LINK** In very small type it says 'The following traders supported us at LM2015 and all are expected to return in 2016." Many didn't, and most of the rest didn't attend this year. One trader told me this was the list from 2014. Most traders told me they had been shafted and won't be back again. If I was a trader I'd report Holliday for selling me a pup.

Has anyone seen this one...? https://www.facebook.com/f35model Edited By Guvnor on 29/05/2017 22:41:32

Posted by Donald Fry on 28/05/2017 20:01:19: Don't know much, but this one put down on the tanks, and the rest of the plane was off the ground. I assume, don't shoot me down, that these are dummy fuel tanks. Fix the fault, rebuild the tanks, and a rebuild of the cockpit hood. Tanks are real and totally destroyed. Huge damage to the underside of the fuselage... It seems to have taken mosrt of the winter to reapir one flap and sundry other faults. I fear CVIX may not be airborne for a long time...

Posted by Mike Blandford on 25/05/2017 00:08:40: But Hobbyking are simply selling this, they don't manufacture it. I got one in July 2016 from bangood, who also are just selling it, not making it. So, in your opinion, is a: Futaba 14SG 14-Channel 2.4GHz Computer Radio System 2.4GHz FASSTest (Set) (Mode 2) costing several hundred pounds "Cheap and nasty" because Hobbyking are selling it? Please read the thread on RCG (with over 9000 posts) to which I linked on the second post of this thread to understand what this module is all about, and how well, or otherwise, it performs. Mike. Citing Futaba is ridiculous, as they obviously have their own QC. It doesn't matter who makes or selss this stuff. I'm speaking from experience of carefully examining electronic products sold by HK. Some are OK. Some aren't. Some are well made. Some aren't. Your models, your choice, but I repeat, I wouldn't trust anything like this in anything other than a foamie...

Posted by Mike Blandford on 24/05/2017 23:27:00: Guvnor: What do you base your opinion on? Hobbyking = Cheap & nasty. Would I trust it in anything other than a really cheap foamie? No...

I'd trust that as far as I could throw it...

Posted by Paul C. on 15/05/2017 14:20:35: Just found this on the Internet 😱 it would appear that later android devices and I think ipads will not run Adobe Flash 😨 Note: Adobe has abandoned Flash for Android distribution. Adobe Flash Player for Android will not work on devices with Android 4.0.1 or higher. Paul 😢 iPads have never run Flash.

"wonder where he went to land again? " That was runway 10 - He then landed on 16 and took off again from 16 later. Very carefully...

Posted by Steve J on 19/04/2017 10:21:54: From the DfT consultation document that very few people seem to have bothered to read - 1.1 A drone is an unmanned aircraft, normally flown by a pilot from a distance, using a remote control station that communicates instructions to the drone. Drones are also known as Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) or Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). Those using drones are referred to as drone users, operators or pilots. 5.2 The CAA has recently revamped its Dronecode to better communicate the rules to users and launched a new drone safety website – www.dronesafe.uk – to make the guidance more accessible to the everyday leisure drone user and the public. The CAA is also using the opportunity to re-engage with manufacturers and vendors to ask that they include the Dronecode in drone packaging or hand it out when it is sold. However, whilst many major vendors and manufacturers do so or point towards it online, it is not compulsory to do so, so some do not. Equally, it is not clear how many of those who receive the Dronecode actually read and digest it. They may therefore not be aware of their responsibilities when flying drones, which could be leading to safety, security or privacy incidents. 5.3 Given this, the Government is seeking input in this consultation as to how this situation could be addressed, to improve current guidance and education for users and thereby reduce incident numbers. 5.7 There are options for further developing the CAA’s safety awareness campaign to improve it, such as potentially working with manufacturers to create a ‘Dronecode approval mark’ if the Dronecode is being issued by this manufacturer or vendor. 5.8 However, the Government is also open to exploring options at a national and EU level to mandate the inclusion of official guidance on safe flying with drones sold in the UK. This approach would put a burden on manufacturers and/or sellers to ensure that their production and logistics processes include issuing the official guidance, but it would ensure that drone buyers in the UK are exposed to this safe flying guidance. Steve And thereby hangs the problem! Any mention there of traditional model flying???

Posted by MattyB on 19/04/2017 10:18:53: What the BMFA cannot afford to do is wash their hands of drones/multirotors in a futile attempt to "save" model flying. Why? Because if they do they will lose credibility with the authorities they are negotiating with. EASA know very well that currently multirotors and drones are governed identically to traditional model aircraft, so the BMFA must maintain an inclusive stance to all forms of SUAS or risk losing their influence at the table. In that case the average BMFA member had better brace itself for a bumpy ride. The costs, the administration and the hassle involved with the influx of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of new members will destroy the BMFA as we know it....

Posted by John F on 19/04/2017 09:46:48: With respect; firstly drones are any model aircraft: The BMFA specifically refers to what you see as a "drone" as Multi Rotor aircraft: **LINK** The CAA also refers to any model aircraft as a drone, RPAS or UAV. By stating that MR fliers are not interested in flying is tarring a lot of people with one huge brush! We have several members at our club who fly MR's, just to fly or race them, and many fixed wing fliers also fly with cameras. The BMFA govern all model flying. Please check out the BMFA website. There is no difference to what is being flown as the rules are all the same for all model flying. The CAA may refer to our aircraft as 'drones' but talk to the CAA people and they know the difference. Some are BMFA members... There are obvously a number of BMFA members who fly MR. I'd contend that the vast maority of the tens of thousands of 'drone' flyers in the UK have zero interest in model flying...

Posted by David Mellor on 19/04/2017 09:44:42: Personally, therefore, I think whatever problems some of us perceive here in the UK regarding MR drones are set to get worse, not better simply because the numbers look so big and continue to grow. It is a bit like looking at a falling barometer and pretending that the weather might not deteriorate! Go and talk to any drone retailer in the UK how sales are going... You'll find that most jumped on the bandwagon a couple of years ago. Most of the ones I know had a year of good sales. As for the last 12 months. Not so good. 'Cliffs', 'edges' and 'over' mentioned a lot...

Posted by David Mellor on 18/04/2017 19:40:27: The first point is the size of the drone market. Worldwide, annual sales of drones are in the many millions of units. It isn't known how many are sold annually in the UK - you'd have to guess (I'd guess 100,000 plus). The second point is that annual global drone numbers are rising very steeply indeed. Drones are increasingly seen as big business, with global annual sales worth around 5 billion dollars. Contrary to what you might expect, only one of the 4 biggest drone manufacturers is Chinese (DJI), the others are French (Parrot) and American (3-D robotics and PrecisionHawk). Of those, DJI has a market value in excess of 10 billion dollars. All four are significant buyers from big chip manufacturers Ambarella, NVIDIA, Intel and Qualcomm. Also contrary to what you might expect, market data indicates that the hobby-drone "action camera" is not a growth area and may even have peaked (despite its apparent popularity in the UK). Your information is out of date. Drone numbers are increasing, but how you can say 'very steeply' is a mystery, seeing as no drone manufacturer I know would ever release sales figures. Your guess of 100,000 units a year in the UK is precisely that - a guess. If you must quote figures, do some research to get accurate ones. Are you counting kids indoor toys? DJI Phantoms? Useless information is worse than none. DJI are the biggest manufacturer of consumer camera drones. As for the others... Parrot - 150 engineers redundant, now concentrating on commercial and military applications. 3DR - Very publically dropped the Solo and getting out of the market, concentrating on commercial and military applications. Precision Hawk - They don't and never have made drones for consumers... And you completely missed out DJI's main competitor. Yuneec - just made half it's engineers redundant and concentrating on commercial and military applications. Intel OWN half of Yuneec, and still can't make it work. The clue here is that DJI have the market wrapped up and the rest are getting out. Why? The consumer market has hit saturation and is now slowly falling. The peak was probably a year ago... Just go and look at the number of Kickstarter drones which have failed in the last 12 months - Zano, Lily etc... As for the pro market, the UK now has around 2K licenced flyers. This market is saturated too. Training schools scrabbling for customers. One of the biggest schools gone under (EuroUSC). Far from being an increasing problem, I'd suggest the problem will slowly diminish over the years... Edited By Guvnor on 19/04/2017 09:22:28

Posted by John F on 19/04/2017 08:49:33: ALL model aircraft are "drones". What you are referring to are Multi Rotor aircraft (MR). People have been killed by fixed wing model aircraft quite a few times over the years, sadly. Someone being killed by a MR will not change the balance. Why is there no room in the BMFA and within our hobby for multi rotor aircraft? No, all model aircraft are NOT 'drones'! This is the issue. Model aircraft are flown by TOTALLY different people to the average drone flyer. Most drone flyers are members of the public who want to get a camera in the air, with NO interest in the flying bit. Suggesting they go off and expore a model aircraft flying site is bizzare - it won't happen. If the BMFA end up 'governing' drones or MR if you prefer, then the balance will change dramtically in the case of the inevitable accident. Any links with our hobby will bring legislation down on us too. I really can't see how the BMFA, which 'governs' 30K model flyers can suddenly take responsibility for hundreds of thousands of drone flyers who have no interest in our hobby. They need their OWN governing body!

Posted by David Mellor on 18/04/2017 22:34:54: The BMFA is doing an excellent job, but is clearly (in my view) struggling to keep up with, let alone govern, the rapid changes in technology that have spawned cheap and widely available drones. The BMFA negotiates with the CAA to define the limitations within which all model aircraft (including drones) are flown in the UK. If the BMFA begins to lose significant governance of drones, then it will find itself in a weaker position in subsequent negotiations with the CAA. For its part, the CAA appears to be coming under greater pressure to tighten regulation of drones. That the BMFA may become weaker in its ability to govern drones in UK airspace makes it all the more likely that the CAA will have no choice but to increase regulation. Which may affect us all, as indeed it is already set to do in other countries. Clearly it is not going to lead to a good outcome for model flying in the UK if these trends (i.e. if the BMFA were to progressively lose governance over drones and if the CAA were to come under pressure to further regulate them) were to develop. Sorry, but you really are heading up the wrong tree here. The CAA aren't stupid. The CAA know the difference between a drone and a model aeroplane. The CAA have stated to people I know that they are 'not interested in what BMFA members do, and are quite happy with what BMFA members do'. They understand what is happening with the drone epidemic and they understand that it has nothing to do with the BMFA. The BMFA should keep drones at arms length, and let the CAA and the Police do any 'governing' required. Why on earth should the BMFA have anything to do with this market. THe first major accident or fatality will instantly tar ALL model flyers with the 'drone' brush. Sorry David but I believe your proposal can only lead to more problems, not less...