MattyB

So let me get this right… You believe increased regulation and a (theoretical) uptick in enforcement activities would improve participation? Can you explain this logic?

PS - @Simon Chaddock, hoping to get at least one of mine done over the xmas period, family commitments permitting. PPS - Do you have any tips on how to connect up the lightweight pull-pull, or a video that describes it? I've done a few of these way back in the day for larger models, but always avoided them for small stuff, but accept it's definitely the best option in this case. What do you use, kevlar thread?

That sounds like a decent starting point, but it can be easily checked by giving it a gentle chuck (switched on) over some long grass, that way even if it's a long way out, you can correct it without any damage being done.

Good stuff, glad you've been able to test it. Did you try a dive test to check the CG? I know it isn't everyone's favourite technique, but I have found it's good at telling me if I'm in the ballpark, and generally I've found getting the CG further back tends to reduce the flap/elevator mixing requirement and improve the dead air glide performance (as long as you don't go to far and end up with it getting twitchy on pitch).

Thanks. I am waiting to see what the BMFA guidance says, though if it is similar to the last consultation I suspect will not be agree with many elements of it and respond based purely on my own views. I am certainly interested to see what they say about the hybrid (network and broadcast) RID proposal and the CAA site authorisation process.

He wasn't "just realising it", he was pointing out to @leccyflyer that the CAA definition does include non-autonomous multirotors flown FPV and LOS, which is different to leccy's proposed definition. Because CAA made it very clear they were not prepared to give an exception to multirotors over 400ft to association members, officially for "safety and security reason" reasons, but probably also in part because the negative optics of doing so for the lobbyists who are bending their ears. A post on this topic from 2018 when the Article 16 authorisation was granted... "Some interesting commentary from the BMFA themselves on FB when asked about this... "The Government was concerned that those wishing to operate multi-rotor drones unlawfully would join the associations solely to benefit from our permission/exemption in order to evade the 400ft limit. There is a lot of data to support permissions for model flyers operating 'conventional' model aircraft (which is why we were able to negotiate the permission), but unfortunately there is also a lot of data showing significant numbers of unlawful multi-rotor drone flights, many of which are at much greater heights than 'conventional' model aircraft would operate (which is why the CAA would not include multi-rotors drones)."

I have it on good authority from a friend in the civil service that they design these consultation processes to be drawn out, complicated and require submission at awkward times precisely to generate those kind of feelings amongst potential respondents. That (plus the well known tactic of proposing something truly horrendous, then falling back to an alternative that is mildly less bad and branding it a "we've listened to you" concession) makes it that much easier for them to slowly erode the rights of minority groups such as ourselves over time until UK Gov has what it is looking for. 😞

I assume you are talking about the CAA regs consultation and not BMFA fees? If that's the case there's no magic bullet, but there are two other actions we could theoretically take beyond what the national associations have done to this point (e.g. advise members on how to engage with the various consultation processes): Direct action (petitions, protests, etc.) - Probably not tenable for us; there are unlikely to be enough UAS/model flying members who would come out, and even if we did the public are unlikely to get behind it as there's nothing really it for non-model flyers. The legal route - Consult with some legal eagles, identify the points in the process where a legal challenge of UK Gov/the CAA is possible, pick a strategy and try and hold them to account for all these made up "facts" and projections in some kind of court. A challenge may come before the law is changed, or might have to wait until some poor soul is hauled over the coals for a transgression (again, the national associations would need to consult with lawyers as soon as the final proposed law was known to identify what the best strategy is likely to be). Expensive (the national associations would probably need to band together), not guaranteed to work and potentially risky for any individual being prosecuted, but probably the only way to really challenge the CAA and UK Gov if they were to ignore all our feedback and implement onerous new regulations that will significantly affect participation. PS - I've seen 2 used in a work context, and it can be very effective even when it's little guy against huge corporations and governments if done well. The problem is it needs pretty big resources plus the patience and confidence to play the long game. Unfortunately we probably don't have the former at this point, I suspect there won't be a body of members prepared to get behind such action since the majority of us fly for fun and relaxation,and will just choose to do something else if it all gets too stressful.

What? I asked if there was a more concrete example of how the BMFA centre adds benefit in the eyes of regulators, and one has been provided by Andy. What exactly is wrong with that on either side, unless of course you prefer living in a communist state where any question of the authority figure/organisation pretty much banned?! I'd looked at the National Centre website and done a Google, but could find no obvious publicity coverage of such visits, or anything other than general "it makes us look good in the eyes of the regulator" type statements. OK, fair cop, that was lazy words and incorrect. However, on a practical level I'm not sure how many members would want to sit on the committee of a club that a) used a site/sites that were only legal when flown under Article 16, and b) was not affiliated, so the committee would not be covered by indemnity cover.

Yes, I've seen a few of those, but I'm pretty sure that filming would just have happened at another physical location had Buckminster not existed - after all, the BMFA has supported that kind of stuff prior to the national centre. In terms of value, I was thinking more about whether we are using the centre to host the CAA, show them the value of the hobby up close and win over a few hearts and minds (maybe - you can but dream...!). Has that been happening on a regular basis? I am not too worried about this years increase, and agree it is pretty small in the grand scheme of things. It's the next 5-6 years that is more concerning based on the BMFA's own projections of costs and falling membership. The numbers complaining now may be small, but that won't remain the case if membership were to dip significantly in 2026 if RID comes in and fees have to increase to fill the gap. Re: the Legal battle, I am not advocating we should have taken this path before now - playing the regulators game was the right thing to do, as not trying to show partnership with the CAA early on would have been counter-productive. As to whether it would work now, I don't honestly know, but even if the chances are slim that still feels better than playing along via the current pathway where the CAA and UK Gov make up the rules and data to suit whatever measure they wish to propose. Ultimately though you are right - that money is gone, we can't get it back, so any legal challenge is financially untenable unless a monster donor comes along out of the blue. I agree country members could vote with their feet and go to an LMA or FPV UK, but I suspect the rise this year won't be sufficient to trigger that at any great scale. From a club perspective, many are reliant on the Article 16 authorisation to continue operating. If clubs are to de-affiliate from the BMFA they would have to win over members that would be required, do all the admin, then join one of the other associations straight away, all within a few weeks. That is an awful lot of admin and faff for committee members to do in a short period, so I doubt the vast majority of clubs will even consider it at this point unless there is a huge clamour from members (which seems unlikely).

I don't agree that we'd be better off if multirotors had not been invented. There are lots of great uses for them from TV to crop surveys, as well as BVLOS fixed wing drones to deliver critical medical supplies etc. I have also flown a few myself, and they can be lots of fun. The problem is just that when something genuinely new is invented, initially it is can only be subject to legislation made up for a time before it existed. Of course the authorities could have chosen to separate camera carrying quadcopters from LOS model aircraft relatively simply at the outset, but they actively fought every attempt by the associations to do this because it wasn't in their interest - it's far easier to regulate and enforce if every type of craft under one umbrella.

As per the first part of my post at the top of this page, I was talking about the £252k transferred from the "General Development Reserve" in 2016 to fund the initial lease and development phases of the project as per @steve too's earlier post, not subsequent donations for ongoing opex: Are you saying every penny of that reserve money was from donations and bequethments specifically for a national centre? That is not my recollection of the original proposal or the briefings given by Manny at the time, though I no longer have a copy and it is not available from any of the original links (perhaps you or Andy can provide one). Even so, I am 95% certain BMFA leadership were very open on this point and confirmed those were general reserves built up from a number of sources over many years, a percentage of which came from subs surpluses. So to be clear, in your opinion BMFA members either have to volunteer to support and help with a project they don't happen to agree with, or are never allowed to exercise their right of free speech to express concerns about that project? There is nothing in between? All a bit Putin-esque isn't it? PS - I have represented clubs at Area level in the past, and in the period immediately after the EGM I did try and get involved in the proposed review into the Articles of Association. I won't go into details here, but it pretty quickly became very clear that the org wasn't really serious about changing the status quo. On that basis I decided I'd to walk away and spend that time on my young kids and job instead.

That's a simple one - I didn't offer my help because (based on the numbers presented by the BMFA and the benefits projected) I didn't believe renting or buying a site was the right thing to do at that time. Whilst I've visited the site on a couple of occasions and fully acknowledge the team have built a very nice facility that is a great venue for events and competitions, my view hasn't changed, especially as the site does not yet break even and almost none of the investments made are recoverable. On that basis if you offered me the site today versus the money in the bank, I would choose the latter. Why, given we are model flying association and it's a site designed for model flying? Because (as I'm 95% sure I posted at the time) those funds would have bought fair chunk of legal support to fight the ridiculous proposed regulations that (if passed) will affect every model flyer in this country hugely, not just those that currently benefit from Buckminster. This latest consultation has only reinforced that view - we've played along nicely filling out their forms and providing our feedback over a number of years now, but in almost all cases it has been ignored on the basis of ludicrous future scenarios where the skies are black with commercial drones, all supported by pseudo "facts" created to support the interests of the lobbying organisations. It will be an unpopular view, but I do now believe the time for playing along nicely is at an end. The only way I can see to defend our rights is by the national associations banding together, pooling resources and using legal channels to attempt to hold UK Gov and the CAA to account. It is not without risk and could absolutely still fail, but playing the game entirely according to the authorities rulebook is clearly not going to stave off RID in a form that (as proposed) is probably the highest cost and most invasive implementation proposed anywhere in the world. PS - Any member of the BMFA is entitled to be supportive of the org as a whole without agreeing with every decision they make. Your posts are always exhibit the tone of someone who believes that any member who does not agree with everything the BMFA does and every line in the articles of association is unsupportive of the org and has no right to comment. I do recognise the good that the BMFA does and continues to do, but I do have concerns the situation (both financial and regulatory) it finds itself in is unprecedented in it's history. If you don't want to see my views feel free to put me on your ignore list, but I am entitled to hold them and I'm not breaking any rules by sharing them here.

I get the second part about avoided costs and agree with that, and I am confident there is currently no direct opex subsidy from members subs. However, for as long as Buckminster's running costs are part funded by a "donation" from the insurer, I consider members are subsidising it's cost. The insurer is not a charity; maybe they get some tax benefits etc. for donating in this way, but the majority of that money has to be coming from the premiums ordinary members pay, so it remains an indirect subsidy. I also have sympathy with those in this thread who are pointing out that large amounts of members fees were invested into the national centre initially and over the past few years to establish the centre. That reserve was not built up exclusively from donations for a national centre or bequethments, it came in part from surpluses built up in good years, and I don't remember the the proposals from the BMFA at the time ever denying that. AS a result no-one here should be criticising them for pointing out that members current and past have contributed to the establishment of the centre via past years subscriptions. This was quoted repeatedly in the original presentations as a projected benefit, and it comes up regularly in posts on this site, but can we have an actual example of where this has made a tangible benefit to the wider BMFA membership? I've never actually seen anything more quantifiable than what you post above. Based on the latest projections, it does not seem like a £10k surplus is likely in any of the next few years. With inflation as it is and membership decreasing, it is difficult to see the economics getting rosier for Buckminster or the BMFA in the foreseeable future, though I hope I am wrong there and an economic upturn is around the corner that may help us out a bit. If not the BMFA are going to have to cut it's cloth somewhat differently as membership numbers fall (as per their own predictions). It's not the BMFA's fault, but affiliation to a national association is effectively mandatory for many (probably most) clubs now, as a huge number of clubs sites would not be legally flyable without an Article 16 authorisation. The crux for the BMFA and other national associations will come in 2026 if the CAA assume authority for deciding which sites can be legally flown under Article 16 (as the most recent consultation indicates they want to do). If it were to go anything like the US, a decent percentage of existing sites will be turned down for one reason or another, at which point those clubs and their members will definitely start asking whether BMFA membership and club affiliation is worthwhile. Hopefully we can collectively fight this regulatory over-reach at least to some extent, but if we are unsuccessful BMFA membership may drop off a cliff in 2026.

The BMFA tried to buy land, but when it became clear that the numbers involved were astronomical and they wouldn't get the mortgage needed they moved to renting. If the goal was a site of our own this was pragmatic solution, but whilst they the BMFA team have undoubtedly built an asset in terms of the facility (it's a very pleasant flying site I'll admit), from financial perspective it's definitely a liability. The original proposals and financials have long since been removed from the BMFA site, but suffice to say large amounts of money have been sunk into the site that are not recoverable at the end of the lease, and as has been noted in this thread it's not yet breaking even. Despite being regularly quoted by BMFA team members it's still never been clear to me why renting it is supposed to improve the standing of model flying amongst the authorities that matter, either, but what do I know. Certainly it's difficult to see any positive influence the initiative has had based on the most recent two consultations we've been landed with.

Indeed. The fact they are even mentioning Gatwick is completely ridiculous when zero evidence has been presented to show that a UAS was ever there. Geeksvana does pick up on this too in a recent video on the consultation... This video also gives a good view of the main elements of the consultation for anyone wanting a fairly accessible overview, though obviously he tends to talk from an FPV and multirotors perspective more than traditional aeromodellers.

We have discussed this before Paul… As per that thread and plenty of other resources online, RID is required in France for anything over 800g flown outside an officially registered site. Since the vast majority of slopers will weigh more than that (I think I only have one slope glider lighter than 800g) and i understand there are very few registered slope sites, then RID is pretty much mandatory, at least in theory. That thread doesn’t suggest enforcement is high on the average gendarmes list, though!

As per the post I just made above, it essentially means they get to decide if a site and the way it is operated is ok or not, not the club or the national association. Given where the lobbying £££s and political will are at this point, how kind do you think they are likely to be to the average club operating on the edge of a town or city? Hmmm, I think the military have a term for this....😉 No doubt @GaryWebb will be along in a moment to tell us we should embrace this wholeheartedly as "a cost of taking part". I wonder if he will take that same viewpoint if his club site is not approved by the CAA when network and direct RID is mandatory at ~£300 a pop...

There is a big problem under the covers here with the proposals though, and many clubs in the US are finding out about it the hard way as the rules related to FRIAs are fairly similar in this respect. Under the current regulations and Article 16 authorisation any club site can remain legal if the requisite RAs aredone and suitable precautions are taken to mitigate any risks posed by the fact there may be buildings/recreational areas etc. within the minimum defined distances. Under the new rules it's not enough for the national association to be happy with it - the CAA will get to decide if they think your current club site can be operated safely, and if they says it can't, decades of safe operations won't count for anything if your strip is 1m too close to something where you could be "endangering" third parties. That means there is potential for large numbers of club sites that can only be used legally today under Article 16 becoming unusable at the whim of the CAA. And remember, with these restrictions they are highly unlikely to make it easy to apply for a new site with an exemption from RID given a) you won't have a history of safe operations from that location, and b) it's not in the interests of business and UK Gov to do so. Only a tiny percentage of slope sites have nationally affiliated clubs operating from them, so if it goes anything like it has in France, RID will effectively be mandated for 99% of slope soaring. In theory that is a big problem, especially given the approach in the proposals is a high cost one because it features network ID from day 1. In practice the chances of enforcement on the average slope is so remote that I am sure most slopers will simply choose to ignore that requirements, especially as the nature of their sport means they are using airspace that is not likely to be "drone central".

@Andy Symons - BMFA, can you tell us when the BMFA will be releasing guidance on how it suggests members respond to the latest consultation please? If anything this one is even more difficult to understand than the last, which I'm certain is deliberate. I also find the timing (right over xmas period) rather cynical. These factors mean I am sure the BMFA is keen to get the word out to members asap to give the maximum time to respond - can we expect something in the coming days?

Their definition of "innovation" is all in the (yes, yet another... 😉) consultation document - get ready to be unimpressed...

Just read from about pg 13 of this very thread, everything you need to know is there….

Yes, I noticed that. I've not read it in detail yet, but from a quick scan it looks like there may be a few additional nasties in the fine print in several areas in addition to the RID requirements...

Just slice slots top and bottom, insert carbon strip of an appropriate size, then run in some (foam safe) cyano and a splash of kicker - should only take a few mins and work well (I’ve done this to reinforce many an ARTF, though with EPO models you can use std cyano).

OK, I'm all set up for tonights saving session - anyone else participating? In the end I used Predbat (sorry @Gary Manuel 😉) to schedule the discharge, which it seems to do very nicely. There not big money to be made (only ~£8 per 1hr session for my setup), but it all adds up to helping to pay back the system in even shorter timescales... This is the electricity rates graph... you can see how the rate goes up to £2.25/unit during the savings session: