MattyB

Posted by Brian Cooper on 28/12/2017 07:44:19: I hate to be the purveyor of gloom and doom but from observations done over a few years by myself and others at various different clubs, it seems that the quickest way to kill a Lipo battery is to put it into storage. Many folk have discovered (to their cost) that after putting their Lipos into "hibernation" for a while, the things don't fully wake up again -- and it makes no difference how much you paid for the battery when new. If you want to keep them alive, charge them up 100% and keep them charged. This is completely contrary to the research done by the battery manufacturers who are spending billions at present improving the power packs for electric cars and home storage solutions. I assume you ran a fully controlled test where all other variables (charge and discharge rates, storage temperatures and voltages, number of cycles etc) were kept the same so that only the storage regimens were different? If not your observations are meaningless, sorry. For example Dendrite growth reduces capacity and current delivery, has been well researched and is known to occur at an increased rate when cells are held at elevated SOC (state of charge). Nissan know this to their cost, so I am not sure why you believe storage at elevated SOC is not damaging to lithium cells.

Without knowing more about the cell counts, capacities and number of packs you intend to charge it is very difficult to recommend a charger an power supply setup. Do you intend to parallel charge? What C rating do you wish to charge at? All important things we need to know. Even so, nowadays I always recommend a setup that can handle at least 6S and provide a minimum of 300W, and ideally 500W - that give you the absolute to grow into larger models as and when you want to without further investment. A charger to do this can be sourced relatively affordable (look up the Turnigy Reaktors), though don’t get too hung up on having dual outputs as the need for those can be removed if you charge in parallel using a high power setup. Converted server PSUs can provide bulletproof high current delivery for ~£40 and an evening’s soldering work.

Posted by Colin Bernard on 26/12/2017 22:30:43: Just to clarify the Hitec situation a US Hitec sales guy posted this on AT's RCG thread... 'The Aurora 9X is our last transmitter. Production on all current models will continue, but no new transmitters for the time being. The market is far too dense and has been for some time now. The 14 and 16ch exist and there are several people that were testing them so they are definitely not vaporware- the 14ch looks much like the Flash 8 with some darker hints to its coloring' Wow - that is just embarrassing. Something that has been trailed for years, never released, yet is not vapourware?!! This sort of rubbish is exactly why so many have deserted Hitec for other brands; the endless broken promises of channel counts beyond 9 and additional functionality that have never been fulfilled. It is a shame; the Aurora was a great set and they could have been market leaders if they'd carried on developing their line. Instead they rested on their laurels and watched as FrSky, Jeti and Spektrum released new sets with lots of additional functionality they simply have not been able to match. I like Hitec servos, but their radio gear is not something I would personally invest in at this stage - there is just too much risk that new RX availability and radio support could disappear in the medium term. Edited By MattyB on 27/12/2017 02:30:59

Posted by Steve J on 10/12/2017 12:23:08: Posted by cymaz on 10/12/2017 11:57:46: What do you class them as As far as I am concerned they are all simply unmanned aircraft. People stating that "model aircraft are not drones" need to produce workable definitions of both model aircraft and drones as distinct subsets of unmanned aircraft and I don't think that it is possible to do so. Steve Agreed. There seem to be many on this forum and others who are unhappy with model flying being grouped with multirotors, but none of those people can come up with a definition that is easy to understand and exempts model fliers from the onerous parts of this legislation without introducing loopholes or grey areas. That is clearly the problem the BMFA and EMFU have had in negotiations with EASA over many months. According to the updates they spent a lot of time discussing, but could never agree a definition to exempt model flying that worked for both parties. Combined with the fact models are already legislated together with multirotors under the existing regulations means even an infinite number of postcards, emails or pigeons(!) are not going to turn this around at such a late stage - we will all be legislated together with multirotors, like it or lump it. The key questions now are the format of the registration scheme(s), the nature of the exemptions that will be given for affiliated clubs and their members and the effect the regs will have on flying at public sites not controlled by a club. Edited By MattyB on 11/12/2017 13:11:08

Posted by Ace on 05/12/2017 10:31:44: ...A couple of older club members who adopted parallel charging before me have recently had 5/6 batteries each all developed high internal resistance resulting in only delivering/ accepting 500mha from 2.2 batteries + puffing. On questioning neither connected just the power leads for a few minutes first, to balance and both connected 6 x 2.2 3s to 5a chargers meaning they only charged at 0.37c. Question - (Power lead balance first obviously) However will the 0.37c charge rate have contributed to the mass fail or are they just unlucky? I would say that is unlikely; charging very slow (<1C) won't extend the life of packs, but it shouldn't harm them either of you have a decent charger. It's more probable another variable is more instrumental in terms of the degradation, most likely the discharge rate they were using them at being beyond the real world C-rating of the pack, or long term storage at an elevated state of charge (>4V/cell). Even field charging before the pack has fully cooled can have an effect on cycle life. You need to ask them more questions about their usage patterns.

Sadly I think you overestimate the knowledge of those legislating here, be they in EASA or the UK government. They only see the potential tax £s/Euros at stake; safety is a smoke screen and model flying in its current form a sacrifice that they believe is more than worth paying for a shot at establishing a commercial industry in the design/manufacture/maintenance of commercial drones.

More possible bad news as reported by Reuters and picked up on the XJet channel... It appears the proposal for models below 250g to be very lightly legislated and exempted from registration has changed; it's now a "below 80J of KE" limit. Err, what? How the hell could that ever be enforced? Bonkers. Edited By MattyB on 02/12/2017 17:20:18

Looking at the planform of your model... ...I would not recommend you use flaperons, certainly not beyond the 3-4 mmm range - the ailerons are only on the outer ~2/3 of the wing, so flaperons are introducing wash-in which could induce a tip stall. If you do go this route deploy the flaperons at height (given the small movement needed using a switch is fine in this instance, no need for a slider) and bring it up to the stall to see what happens. It might be fine, but you don't want to be experimenting on the first approach! If your TX can do it you should also set up a flight mode with more extreme (70-100%) differential when the flaps are deployed - you don't want to be introducing too much additional movement to the down going flaperon when using the ailerons to correct whilst low and slow. If going with spoilerons (which I agree with Steve can work, though they are more difficult to dial in trim wise) start with around 30 degrees upgoing movement activated on a slider. You are likely to need some elevator compensation, but unfortunately it isn't always in the same direction (I did research his once and seem to remember it is linked to whether the model has a short or long tail moment, but I could be wrong) so deploy first time at height and be ready to compensate with elevator either way. Once you've done that land normally and add in a compensating mix so you don't have to do it manually, but remember that this will only work at one speed so don't deploy the spoilerons when flying at full chat - let the model settle to it's normal approach speed first. Finally a flight mode that reduces differential or even introduces -ve diff (i.e. more down than up) may also be needed to ensure you maintain enough aileron control when the upgoing aileron may be close to it's max travel. Hope that helps!

Can I humbly suggest people read this update from the BMFA from back in May 2017 if you have not already? It gives a good descripton as to how we have arrived where we are today a manageable level of detail - this includes the multiple rounds of consultation where model flyers and national associations have fed back their dissatisfaction with the draft proposals, the steps the BMFA and Europe Air Sports (EAS) have taken to attempt to exempt traditional model flying from the most onerous controls initially proposed, and why our disciplines have not been granted a blanket exception. Based on this I find it hard to believe any further lobbying to exclude model flying from the regulations completely has any chance of success. The start of the article is below for ease of reading, but do follow the link and read the whole thing as it is a very useful summary:   NPA 2017-05(A) Introduction of a regulatory framework for the operation of drones The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) began the process to create a regulatory framework for the operation of drones in 2015, when in August they published the A-NPA 2015/10 – “Introduction of a regulatory framework for the operation of drones”. This document appeared to offer a number of concessions and safeguards to avoid a negative impact on the long established activity of model flying. Europe Air Sports (EAS) provided formal feedback to this publication and in all there were around 3,400 comments submitted. EASA then published their Technical Opinion in December 2015, which again stated that “the intention is to develop rules which will not affect model flying”. EASA do not at this stage have the authority/competence to regulate aircraft below 150Kg, and so their next publication in August 2016 was the “Prototype Regulation for Unmanned Aircraft Operations“. EASA stated that this document was intended to provoke discussion to help them formulate the actual NPA (notice of proposed amendment – which outlines the proposed rules). EASA certainly achieved the objective of provoking discussion and received over 1000 emails from model aircraft practitioners expressing their dissatisfaction with the requirements for model aircraft included in the “Prototype Regulation“. Based on the feedback received, EASA agreed to create an “Expert Group“ to help improve the quality of the draft regulation and develop additional options for model aircraft activities. The Expert Group comprised 26 members selected from relevant stakeholders. Model flyers were represented by Dave Phipps (Europe Air Sports) and Bruno Delor (FAI). In all, the Expert Group met for a total of nine days between November 2016 and March 2017 with an additional Webex meeting to discuss model flying. The NPA (2017-05 A) was published on the 12th May and is open for feedback until 15th September. It can be viewed here: **LINK** The position taken by Europe Air Sports (and FAI) on behalf of model Flyers throughout Europe was that model aircraft and model flying should not fall within EASA regulations at all. We lobbied through the European political system for model flying to be clearly derogated from “drone“ flying and proposed placing it within Annex 1 of the Basic Regulation (to leave it within national control). Unfortunately, there was insufficient political support to remove model flying from EASA regulation entirely, but a compromise was reached which compelled EASA to include “dedicated provisions for recreational flight activities conducted within the framework of model clubs and associations” within the regulations. As such, the NPA (whilst not what we would have chosen) does certainly improve the situation for model flyers in comparison to the rules outlined in the “Prototype Regulation". Edited By MattyB on 30/11/2017 13:29:16

Posted by Steve J on 29/11/2017 22:38:44: Posted by MattyB on 29/11/2017 20:30:47: The EASA definition is perfectly clear too The word 'drone' is used four times in 2017-05 (A), once in the title and three times in references. It isn't used at all in draft regulation. EASA use drone informally as a synonym for unmanned aircraft. The various UK agencies use drone informally to mean either unmanned aircraft or multirotor. IMHO the Airprox board are the worst when it comes to the term as they use it both to mean multirotor and and as a catchall. Steve Apologies, you are quite correct. What I meant to say (but replied too quickly!) is that the EASA definition of UAS is used in the draft regulation perfectly clear. As you point out drone is occasionally used as a synonym within the various docs they have published.

Posted by Rich too on 29/11/2017 18:57:06: Posted by MattyB on 29/11/2017 17:16:26: Posted by Rich too on 29/11/2017 06:36:56: Confirmation that traditional model aircraft are not drones. Perhaps someone can pass this link on to the powers that be: **LINK** I've passed it on to the LMA. I'm afraid that boat has sailed. Read the various historic updates on the BMFA News pages - all the EU modelling associations have made multiple appeals to EASA to reconsider the inclusion of models aircraft under the definition, and all these appeals have been rejected. What Scientific American defines as a drone is hardly likely to be considered relevant or influential in EASAs eyes if the BMFA and DMFV have already tried and failed several times with the same argument. If nothing else, I was merely pointing out that there IS a clear definition. The EASA definition is perfectly clear too - none of us has any issue understanding it, we just don't necessarily agree with it. You seem to be arguing that the Scientific American definition is somehow definitive, but I'm not sure why - with a bit of Googling any of us could come up with tens or hundreds of alternative definitions online, some nearer to EASAs and others further away. At the end of the day in EASAs eyes there is only one definition that counts, and unfortunately for us despite multiple attempts it appears they are not going to change their view. Edited By MattyB on 29/11/2017 20:31:43

Posted by Bob Burton on 29/11/2017 10:27:20: Posted by Brian Cooper on 29/11/2017 07:53:08: Personally, I would like to see multi-rotor "drones" regarded in the same way as firearms, ie, you need to have a licence (which has to be produced and checked at the point of sale) BEFORE you can buy one. The licence should not be easy to get and it should be expensive. After that, each and every drone, by law, should be fitted with a recordable GPS transponder so their flights can be traced, tracked and recalled. To drag out an old cliché, those who have nothing to hide will have nothing to worry about. B.C. Edited By Brian Cooper on 29/11/2017 07:54:21 Personally I would like to see all bigots banned from flying UAVs of any kind Here here Bob. Any UAV can be used irresponsibly, irrelevant of how many whirly bits they have and in what direction they point - it's the pilot that is the key to safe operator, not the craft. Yes the explosion in multirotor drones has had an influence in bringing about these proposed changes in legilsation, but look at the documents and it's easy to see the proposals are not primarily about curbing the "drone menace" - that's a smokescreen, it's all really about freeing the way to commercialising that airspace below 400ft.

Posted by Rich too on 29/11/2017 06:36:56: Confirmation that traditional model aircraft are not drones. Perhaps someone can pass this link on to the powers that be: **LINK** I've passed it on to the LMA. I'm afraid that boat has sailed. Read the various historic updates on the BMFA News pages - all the EU modelling associations have made multiple appeals to EASA to reconsider the inclusion of models aircraft under the definition, and all these appeals have been rejected. What Scientific American defines as a drone is hardly likely to be considered relevant or influential in EASAs eyes if the BMFA and DMFV have already tried and failed several times with the same argument. Edited By MattyB on 29/11/2017 17:21:16

Posted by ChrisB on 28/11/2017 19:32:23: Fear not folks, I don't think the world is going to end. Registration will be defacto if you're in a national association. The logic of registering every individual flying machine, from palm size up to those weighing 20kg is not realistic and will never happen, its not enforceable, manageable or reasonable. The logistics of keeping track of every aircraft, ones that crash, get stored, sold, or have significant modifications is never going to be workable by anyone, neither the BMFA nor individual clubs. ...The DFT won't do much more until EASA have published their findings. The recent news said there would be DFT a consultation in the spring. That will be the second DFT consultation in as many years, so it will be very interesting to see what that consultation contains. I will bet my salary it will be focused solely on MR aircraft and not on model aeroplanes as we traditionally knew them. I.e. we the aeromodellers are not their concern! Have you actually read the EASA prototype regulation? Registration of UAVs and pilots is all there in black and white under the various classes of operation - see the extract below from a previous thread where we discussed this (click to enlarge): You may well have a point that it is unenforcible, but that does not mean it won't happen - lots of laws fall into that category! Posted by ChrisB on 28/11/2017 19:32:23: ...The DFT won't do much more until EASA have published their findings. The recent news said there would be DFT a consultation in the spring. That will be the second DFT consultation in as many years, so it will be very interesting to see what that consultation contains. I will bet my salary it will be focused solely on MR aircraft and not on model aeroplanes as we traditionally knew them. I.e. we the aeromodellers are not their concern! We may not be their primary concern, but there is precisely zero evidence at this time that the law makers are looking to differentiate between mutirotor drones and LOS model aircraft. At this stage it appears we will need to rely on the goodwill of the CAA to grant exceptions to parts of the regs for those operating within the BMFA/LMA framework. Edited By MattyB on 28/11/2017 23:40:38

Good luck, but having written a few emails to MEPs during the consultation period I wouldn't hold out too much hope for a change in tone or even a reply!

Posted by Steve J on 28/11/2017 16:39:25: Posted by Piers Bowlan on 28/11/2017 13:33:56: Mandatory app usage to determine that a flight can be made safely. I have been using Drone Assist all year. No big deal. The things that worry me the most are the 400ft limit being extended to sub-7kg and what is going to happen with electronic identification (nobody knows, it's a known unknown), but nobody mentions them. Everybody seems to be focused on registration and a bit of e-learning, neither of which bother me. Steve Agreed - if the 400ft limit is extended to under 7kg models then it will be very difficult to fly thermal legally in the UK. I am also worried about the requirement under the UAS Open Class 60b) we have discussed before... "(a) Operations in Subcategory A3 may be conducted with UAS: ...... (6) privately built. the technical requirements... (b) UAS in this Subcategory are not intended to be operated in congested areas or close to aerodromes or over uninvolved persons. (c) The remote pilot should assess that reasonably, no uninvolved person will be present in the area and airspace where the UA is intended to be flown, during the entire time of the UAS operation. (d) When the operation is conducted with a privately built UAS or UAS Class C4, the remote pilot should keep the UA at a safe distance from the boundaries of congested areas or aerodromes such that no third party is endangered in case of UA malfunction or loss of control. The safe distance should be determined based on the actual performance of the UA. (e) Should a person incidentally enter the visual range of the remote pilot, the remote pilot should avoid overflying the person, and discontinue the operation when the safety of the UAS operation is not ensured."   I know you believe stating your location via the Drone Aware app will be enough, but I still cannot see how any pilot flying from a public site that is NOT a dedicated model flying facility can "...assess that reasonably, no uninvolved person will be present in the area and airspace where the UA is intended to be flown, during the entire time of the UAS operation." If that is how the regs are passed there will be a major question mark over our right to operate from longstanding public sites across the UK where a "tenant" BMFA club does not operate. Edited By MattyB on 28/11/2017 17:52:17

Posted by Cuban8 on 28/11/2017 16:13:47: What a complete faff - I hope we can resist having to do all this. BTW, who'll be responsible for policing whether models are carrying the right stickers? Clubs required to appoint 'compliance officers' ? This is a good point. If the legislation puts a formal onus on the BMFA and clubs to provide the right environment in terms of checks, training, testing etc then it is highly likely the paperwork required by club officers will increase significantly. That will make it harder to fill these positions than it is now, particularly if people are worried about being held personally liable if an airprox incident were to occur associated with a member of the club (yes I know the BMFA insurance covers Officers, but even so it does not make the prospect of being personally targeted in a civil case any more palatable).

Posted by Cuban8 on 27/11/2017 11:27:19: Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 27/11/2017 09:53:47: The risk of an incident with a manned aircraft has been a useful lever for the legislators to push this through. It's clear to me, with all the proposals for 'What drones can do for us' in the articles, is that the main intention has always been to secure the previously unused free airspace between ground level and 500ft for commercial purposes. Apart from conceding a few clearly defined areas such as club sites, the authorities have effectively given model flying the 'heave-ho'.... Pete I'm aware that we risk going over old ground on this, and you've been very informative regarding the potential of new technology and it's use in sub 500' airspace. As for the 'what can drones do for us?' line of thought, I notice that those who were selling us the line that the skies will be black with drones delivering Amazon stuff to our gardens, have got bored with that, and have gone on to the driverless van as the new way forward. So what does that leave and to what scale will it be eating into 'our' 500'airspace? Surveillance, search and rescue, traffic control, emergency medical supplies, powerline surveys, just these few come to mind at the moment. Compared to the thousands (guessing) of R/C model flights that are made each week either from club sites or elsewhere, and cause no bother at all, the commercial users that the legislators are so fond of will surely be in a tiny minority. Why then, as you say, are we as customers of a UK multi million pound industry, to say nothing of the sporting aspects, and many other good community works, should be at risk of getting the 'heave ho'? Because the tax revenue associated with model flying is but a drop in the ocean compared to what the legislators think they could get out of the logistics firms for access to the airspace below 500ft + the money from a home grown industry in commercial drone design/manufacture/servicing. Because model flying is only undertaken by a tiny number of people across Europe, nowhere near enough to have any significant impact in an election (750k rings a bell, whilst there are ~740m in Europe overall). Because the government believe (perhaps correctly) the majority of the public want the "drone menace" so beloved of the Daily Mail et al to be eradicated from the skies. I am not saying I like or agree with the above points, but I do agree with BEB that in combination they are the true rationale behind the proposals from EASA and the recent announcements from the UK government. Just look at the tone - U-space and fostering the commercial opportunities that come with a home grown drone industry are all over the documents and statements. PS - I have never believed there was any intent to differentiate between model aircraft and drones in these regs. After all, anything unmanned that flies is currently legislated for under the single umbrella of UAVs/RPASs. Why would they make their lives more difficult now when there is no previous precedent to differentiate? There is no value proposition in it for them - it makes the regs harder to enforce, will be unpopular with the big corporations they are eager to encourage and might be seen as "chickening out" by the public and industry. If model flying becomes collateral damage that is clearly a price they are more than happy to pay. The BMFA and other modelling associations across Europe know this, and as a result I believe they have been negotiating for the "least worst" outcome from day one. PPS - Please don't shoot the messenger; I don't like the above any more than you do, but I do believe it is a reflection of the current situation.

Some useful links on the subject of side and down thrust... Gibbs Guides explanation Another brief guide to the theory as applied to electric and IC models P-factor explanation (Wikipedia) Edited By MattyB on 24/11/2017 12:39:23

Posted by brokenenglish on 24/11/2017 08:36:09: ...I suspect that the problem with the old battery may be that, for the first 2 or 3 years, I used to leave it permanently fully charged, which leads to my simple question: What charging current should I use to charge this new battery? And also what discharge current, for "storage" charging. Note that I’m never in a hurry for charging, and I wouldn’t be at all bothered by a low current / long period charge. Expert opinions invited please!!! Yes, leaving a lipo fully charged for extended periods will reduce the capacity and effective C rating (ability to deliver high current) and increase internal resistance. This is due to chemical processes within the cell, the main one being dendrite growth on the anode which can ultimately lead to an internal short (probably what happened in your case). The best advice would be to use a 2S LiFe battery instead - they are much more resilient to be held at elevated SOC for long periods, and should be fine with your ignition circuit; you don't hve to charge them to their full voltage anyway if it's just a bench pack. Re: charge rates, 1-2C is absolutely fine (most modern lipos are rated to 4-5C, though I never bother to charge them that hard as I have a meaty parallel charging setup instead). Discharge to storage is more likely to be defined on the maximum watts your charger can safely dissipate as heat - normally they are limited to 1-1.5A on a 3S pack, you might get a smidge more at the lower voltage of a 1S. Edited By MattyB on 24/11/2017 09:36:22 Edited By MattyB on 24/11/2017 09:38:46

Posted by kc on 23/11/2017 18:46:13: The point is the 25000 is what makes the NFC seem succesful when it would not be without that subsidy. It's really come from our subs surely if it comes from our insurers? The subs could be less if it came off our insurance bill! You could of course make the NFC seem really profitable if you gave the Secretary a 25000 pound rise which he then donated to the NFC project as well! It's just called creative accounting isn't it? Posted by Peter Christy on 23/11/2017 18:16:59: ...I've been away from home and unable to post much during the trip, but a while back someone made a comment about the £25K sponsorship supplied by the insurers, and suggesting it would be better spent reducing the insurance. If you look at the figures, it would make no difference! The BMFA currently has around 33,000 members I understand, so £25K split 33K ways comes to about 75p per member! Big Deal! And that's not the end of it, because sponsorship can be offset against corporate profits, so by putting money back into the hobby via sponsorship, the insurers are able to reduce the amount of tax they pay. So it will actually come out at quite a bit less than 75p per member! Now I can understand people objecting to the PRINCIPLE of this, but the numbers make the argument against the sponsorship look extremely tight-fisted - to put it mildly! Others have questioned why the BMFA bothered obtaining a site which was not big enough to host the Nats. Looking at the vitriol that has been poured on the BMFA for obtaining the NC - at essentially no cost to the membership (OK, less than 75p each!), can you imagine the uproar if they had proposed buying - or even leasing - something like Barkston? I can see why both the insurers and the BMFA like using that £25k sponsorship to help fund the NFC - it is financially efficient for both parties. I also can't criticise the BMFA in this instance for using such a mechanism, as it was clearly publicised that this would be a key method of funding the NFC in the first 4 years. What I have to challenge is the text in bold italics, which to use a favoured term of the day is demonstrably an "alternative fact". By the BMFA's own figures the association will have spent ~£435k on this project by the end of year 4 on capital setup costs and the lease, £335k from the development reserve. That's ~£12.40 per member - perhaps not a huge amount in some peoples eyes, also not "free" (60% of the development fund built up by members over the years will have been spent). What also needs to be remembered is that none of that investment is recoverable - we do not own the site or the buildings, so if we decide the centre is not affordable from year 5 onwards the BMFA will have to invoke the break clause and walk away from that money. This is why the landowner was happy to put in £150k themselves; they know that the site will be left significantly improved were the BMFA to be forced to leave at the first break point. These factors are why IMO the NFC cannot be deemed a success or a failure at this point, even given the strong initial progress. That can only really come some time in year 5 or 6 - the crunch time where incomes will need to have risen substantially to offset any loss of sponsorship, and additional funding found to develop the site according to the phase 2 plan. It is also the point at which (if things are not developing as planned and costs are outstripping incomes) the BMFA leadership could be forced to go to the membership to ask for money to keep it open and ensure the previous investments do not go to waste. Let's hope given the assurances given at the EGM that never happens. Edited By MattyB on 24/11/2017 01:14:53

Posted by Steve J on 22/11/2017 15:32:31: Posted by MattyB on 22/11/2017 15:06:07: Personally I believe the politicians have decided what they want Hot off the press we have the declaration from the 'Helsinki High Level Conference on Drones 2017' (so we now have a Helsinki declaration to join the Riga and Warsaw ones). **LINK** From one of Andy Symons' earlier posts, I assume that Dave Phipps was at this conference. Steve Hmmmm... In section 2 they are pretty direct about demanding the "...urgent conclusion to the Council / Parliament negotiations on the EASA Basic Regulation..." and wanting the European authorities to come forward with indications of future regulatory plans "as a matter of urgency". I also count 9 mentions of U-Space within the 3 pages. For anyone still believing the primary drivers behind EASAs changes are about safety this doc is a wake up call. One platitude about "Stressing the need to guarantee fair access to all airspace users" may be there, but what does that really mean? If there are tax dollars to be had the needs of a tiny minority like model flyers are inevitably going to be seen as irrelevant. Edited By MattyB on 22/11/2017 16:37:48

The two biggest threats to traditional model flying (by which I mean LOS fixed wing, heli or free flight) appear to be the EASA regs and the demographic "cliff" facing most clubs in the next 10 or so years. On former the BMFA are obviously actively engaged, though how much influence they and the other EU model flying agencies really have I am not sure. Personally I believe the politicians have decided what they want - namely tax dollars from the logistics companies - and will only accept very minor tweaks around the edges. With the second issue it is hard to see how any organisation (including the clubs and the BMFA) can fight the changes in society that mean traditional aeromodelling is no longer that exciting or compelling to youngsters. Kids have so many options now, most of which are much more readily accessible and easier to get into, including RTF FPV drones and online gaming. As a result the average age in all three clubs I am a member of rise almost a year every year, with precious few or no juniors to offset the trend. The new beginner is normally in their 40s or 50s, entering after the kids have left home, but there are not as many of those entering (at least round here) as older members leaving. My concern is that it will get ever harder to find people to fill committee positions and do the jobs that need doing in clubs as the baby boomer generation exit the hobby; we are seeing this already in the clubs I am a member of. This will be true of the BMFA too where the governance structure requires a large number of volunteers and extensive travel (due to the fact they do not seem to want to adopt collaboration tools extensively). My guess would be that membership will decline slowly over the next few years, then get significantly greater if/when the EASA regs bite and the baby boomers decide to stop volunteering. That may trigger governance reform in the BMFA, or possibly they will need to hire more paid staff to do the roles needed with the resultant increases in costs. There are lots of possibilities, but it seems to me substantial change is inevitable in the medium term. Edited By MattyB on 22/11/2017 15:19:00

So in summary it looks like a case of "failure by design"!

Posted by Simon Chaddock on 21/11/2017 10:54:30: I think Keith has identified where some of the problem lies. The actual discharge rate plays a significant part in the life of a LiPo. If you can keep the maximum rate of discharge to no more than 10C,with a flight average at half that (and never discharge below 40% capacity!) any LiPo is likely to have a long useful life.. The problem is of course the tiny LiPo in mini quads have to be worked a good bit harder than that to fly at all! Very good point. I have never put a wattmeter on any of my micro/indoor models (mainly cos I don't have any connectors for that and them being RTF jobs had never thought it was necessary), but I am sure you are right that we are pulling much higher currents out of them relative to their size than in larger sport models.