MattyB

Wow, that's quite a first post on the forum, and an interesting choice of handle given the topic under discussion...! 😉

It's a minor technical blip probably caused by a backend update with a parameter incorrectly configured. Give them a few hours and I'm sure it will be fixed - remember, if it's annoying for you, it's also annoying for the forum owners, admins and advertisers too, so it's in their interest to get it fixed.

Be aware that big packs will take a long time to discharge on most chargers, as they generally only have 20-50W max discharge power. That may not be a problem short term, but it does put more wear and tea on your charger, particularly the fan. For this reason you may want to consider putting together a discharging rig... ...or simply run down those packs to 3.8V/cell in the model with the fuselage model safely secured.

This YouTube playlist may well have something that helps…

No ideas on the link I’m afraid (looks like that whole forum has gone), but setup on a paraglider is pretty simple - it’s essentially a flying wing setup, but with an offset of 100% via subtrim so with the arms fully raised (straight ahead) the servos are at the very end of their travel. After that set 100% aileron differential so that if (say) full right is inputted, the RH arm travels down as far as reqd (back to the servo centre point is generally plenty for full “aileron”), and the LH arm does not move. Full “up” (really flare/brake on a paraglider) brings both arms down together to the desired position, but don’t go all the way as you still need some travel left to steer! Also remember down stock won’t do anything to the arms - the only way to go down is cut power, or turn tightly.

The short answer to this is no - you can’t recover damage to an over discharged lithium pack (Lipo or LiFe). However, it may still be usable in a lower current draw usage afterwards for a reduced number of cycles. Personally speaking though I don’t like to take any chances with a pack that could fail n charge or discharge as a result of previous mistreatment, so I tend to just discharge em to <1V/cell, cut off the leads, twist em together and dispose at the recycling centre. Life’s too short for endangering your family and house with sketchy packs!

This thread seems to come up about every 2-3 months! Anyway, here is my std recommendation - don’t use the discharge function on your charger (too slow and increases likelihood of a charger failure), but instead build a cheap discharge rig with 2-3 of these units wired in parallel…

I understand your scepticism Steve - I would be the same if I hadn’t been there when this flight was completed. When the model was up there I could only see it myself if I lay on the floor and looked up (presumably because that enabled me to keep my head more still), but I still couldn’t see which way it was flying. The pilot must have had exceptional vision. This pilot regularly flew at 1000ft+ with DLGs; he had lots of logged flights of this type around at that time, which may have been nearer to 15 years ago I think, when DLG was just getting bigger in the UK. It is a shame, as the altitude logger traces (I was incorrect saying telemetry; it was a logger that many DLG pilots used to fit back then to monitor their launch performance) used to be uploaded to the FlyQuiet forum, but that went offline a long time ago.

https://www.varonis.com/blog/what-is-a-proxy-server#what

After a DLG comp ~10 years ago I saw one of the best pilots at the time hook a thermal at about 100ft altitude and ride it to a telemetry verified 2300ft. For most of the flight he lay down on the floor so he didn’t have to take his eye off the model or crane his neck. That was a 60” DLG with a plain Kevlar wing and a few black stripes for orientation. If I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes…. but it did happen, and shows what is possible for the best pilots. I certainly couldn’t have done it though, even though I was in my early 30s at the time with better eyesight.

They won’t say it, but I do believe the long game (I.e. beyond the current RID implementation proposal) of UK Gov is to clear the airspace below 400ft, at least in the vast majority of areas where commercial BVLOS is tenable and potentially lucrative. UK Gov won’t try to ban recreational model flying of course - that makes them look overly officious, and is probably more easily challenged in the courts - but make it just onerous and costly enough that all but the keenest recreational users can’t be bothered, and it becomes a far easier place for commercial and military users to operate. I doubt they will care that the odd recreational slope soarer or camera equipped UAS flies in remote places in contravention of any new RID regs, as long as major cities and key pathways between them can be kept clear (I.e. no annoying FRIAs causing routing issues), and enforcement is easy whenever they want/need to do so. We will only truly find out though when the final process for authorising the UK equivalent of FRIAs is announced after responses to this “consultation” are reviewed, analysed and duly ignored by the CAA… 🙄

Indeed. Doesn’t look like he will be making any more of those statements, though…

No, you only need an additional exemption if the model is >7.5kgs. The BMFA Article 16 Auth has no height limit for models <7.5kg:

So in other words, “Your hobby is not my hobby, but despite your current operations being entirely legal, I don’t care; I’m quite happy to throw you under the regulatory bus as long as I can carry on”. We already have the CAA and UK Gov looking to erode our access to the airspace below 400ft, yet “friends” like you and Gary are eager to encourage the authorities to regulate anything that doesn’t fit your narrow definition of model flying out of existence. It really is dispiriting to hear such narrow minded views expressed here. Personally I hope that new participants from other disciplines such as @nudge and long established ones such as @David Elam are able to continue flying their models of differing types legally and safely for many years to come, and I will be responding to the consultation using arguments that are based on preserving the rights of all modellers, not just those disciplines I participate in.

Sky ID would not be compliant with the proposals as put forward by the CAA. It only does broadcast ID (e.g., local via Bluetooth), not network ID (which leverages mobile phone technology). I’m not aware of devices that would comply being available anywhere at this point, and they will certainly cost much more than the broadcast only units. However it remains possible that CAA will “listen” to us and allow only broadcast ID in the final regs, which is std government tactics for this kind of thing (suggest something awful, then fall back to something slightly less awful but still bad, and brand it as graceful concession).

Yes...

Based on what I'm seeing locally, those that have been following regulatory matters for a while already understand responding is important and will do so. However the vast majority of club members who fly for a relaxing pastime don't (and have never) wanted to get involved in the bureaucracy, and don't want to spend the time trying to understand the consultation and work out how to respond. I therefore sadly doubt any additional banging of the drum by the BMFA/LMA etc. will make much difference to response rates.

Remember this thread was originally created to discuss the consultation released in Aug, hence why the links to the most recent consultation are not on the first page. Obviously these could be added by mods, but as the thread originator I no longer have edit rights to that post to be able to add this content.

Thank goodness for that. I don't have any problem with anyone having a different view to me. I do have a problem with those who are too lazy to read the documentation put out there by the authorities and national associations, then proceed to repeatedly tell those who have done so that any debate/discussion of the topic is pointless because "what will happen will happen".

The national associations and many of us here certainly know a heck of a lot more about the likely endgame than you. That is because we have actually READ hundreds if not thousands of pages of white papers, consultations and proposals on future UAS integration and regulation from government agencies across the world since the mid 2010s. By contrast you have told us that you have not read the latest CAA consultation, don't intend to respond, and will bend over and acquiesce to whatever regulation they pass regarding RID. On that basis I struggle to see why you continue to contribute in these threads - we all know your views by now, so if you don't want to hear discussion amongst modellers who actively want to challenge this ridiculous regulatory over-reach, just don't participate.

The commercial organisations lobbying UK Gov for improved access to the low level airspace are no UK corner-shops - they are huge multinationals like Google, Amazon, DHL etc., a majority of whom are headquartered in the US. These are the organisations that have been calling for globally harmonized regulations to enable their BVLOS commercial operations to take flight since way back when (Riga 2016 at least), with (probably fantastical) promises of significant regional investment, jobs and tax £££s for those countries that can get there first. That is what UK Gov are chasing, and that is why they are likely to look to places like the US where RID implementation is further along when deciding how to implement it here. That may well be the case, but the problem with your argument is that if the CAA is more conservative than the FAA, they will be less prepared to outsource FRIA authorisation to national associations, not more. Information on the FRIA authorisation processes in countries other than the US seems to be very hard to come by online, but other than the US (where it is definitely done by the FAA), does anyone know of any countries that have implemented RID but outsourced the authorisation of FRIAs to their national model flying associations? @steve too, do you know how they do site authorisations in Japan and France (for instance)? I agree the two party system and the split of power across the Congress and the Senate does make it a very different system, but I doubt anyone who has watched more than 30 mins of the Covid enquiry currently places trust in this particular government, whether they voted for it or not! The last study by the ONS indicates UK trust in government is very low these days, and scandals such as Rishi's wife's non-dom status and the recent rowing back by Baroness Mone regarding PPE doesn't indicate to me that we our politics is less driven by money than anywhere else. Better shut up though, this is heading dangerously close to murky political waters now....!

I am sure that is what the national associations will go for, but it is not how it works in the US, where applications are via CBO to the FAA. Are the BMFA aware of another jurisdiction where they have implemented RID but devolved site authorisation to national associations? I'm not, but if there were that would be a useful precedent. Either way, whilst I'd love to believe the CAA are happy to leave site authorisation to the BMFA, LMA and FPVUK, I just don't believe their political lords and masters will sanction that - it cedes too much control in terms of their ability to clear useful areas of low level airspace for potential commercial use.

Correct, we don't, but how many of those 400ft+ for <7.5kg permits do they process a year at present? Only a small percentage of clubs hold them today, so the time and cost to the CAA will be minimal. If every club/organised group affiliated to a national association were to apply for the UK equivalent of a FRIA, that will be >1000 sites, which is an awful lot of new work for the CAA. Assuming that will be done for free seems rather a large stretch, so I will definitely be commenting in my response that the costs to applicants should either be very minimal (<£10/site/annum, subsidised from DMARES if needs be), or the site authorisations should be handed off to the national associations. I severely doubt the lobbyists and UK Gov will sanction the latter though, as it's not in their interests to do so.

With regards to the possible requirement for site authorisation from the CAA in order to avoid the requirement for pilots to fit RID, I decided to check the current costs for an Article 16 authorisation (it is pretty much the only item on the CAA's charge book that would appear semi-related to the activities that would be involved in the review and approval of a club site for operation without RID). This document shows the initial costs is just over £2k, based on 7 hours of work by the CAA at £290 an hour, with renewal of ~£600/year: Key point - based on their charge book, the CAA don't do anything for free, so we shouldn't assume RID site authorisations will be. For that reason respondents to the call for consultation may wish to mention these eye-watering numbers when responding. Even if they were halved for club RID exceptions vs an Article 16 auth, they would still add a hefty chunk to the membership costs of many clubs and associations, and there is no guarantee the CAA will say yes having assessed your application. That first year could certainly be a nice little money-spinner for the CAA, dwarfing the annual take-home from the DMARES scheme... 🤨😬

I have Giv kit, but chose to use the Octopus scheme as it looked slightly more generous and I already have Home Assistant running. If I didn't have the latter though the GivBack one looks like an easier option (if it works).