MattyB

@Rich Griff, to tag someone you have to type the@ symbol, then immediately the first letters of their username, and a drop down will appear - either select their ID with your pointing device, or keep typing their username until it appears as the only item on the list: They will then get a notification via the forum in line with however they have set up their notifications to be delivered (either via email, or just via the web interface). If their name doesn't appear in the blue box with rounded ends when you post, you haven't tagged them and they won't be notified. PS - Looks like he hasn't logged in since Dec 10th...

They have said more than once that the online one gets updated incrementally as and when these days - they do not do annual updates, one reason why they do not provide printed copies any more. Just keep a link on your phone for reference at the field, no need to print it off.

Better than that, there's a whole forum... https://forums.modelflying.co.uk/index.php?/forum/57-electric-flight-for-beginners/ Specific battery thread:

OK, understood - you weren't suggesting RID would not happen at all, merely that you don't believe it will be applied to LOS model flyers, at least not those operating under a national association authorisation at an officially approved RID exempt location. I agree that may well be the case, but the devil will be in the detail - who reviews and authorises the sites, how much does it all cost on an annual basis, what about the slope soaring and other public access sites, country members who do not use private field, etc. etc. My biggest worry is that this is just the latest incremental erosion of our rights, and is unlikely to be the last - this constant chipping away and adding additional barriers to entry (and continuation) can't help participation in the long run.

RID is not the same as electronic conspicuity. That is yet another stage that uses different tech and would follow a RID rollout. Give it 5 years and they will probably start a similar consultation exercise for how we need that onboard too...

I've flown the sites around Cilan Head including Hell's Mouth many times over the years, though not in the last 10. Despite offering some of the best soaring anywhere, fellow flyers and even passers by aren't exactly common (unless you count the sheep), so I'd say the chances of RID enforcement (or even any Karen's checking up and reporting you) are essentially zero!

Exactly. There is absolutely no need for this to be permanently displayed. Imagine what would happen if the BBC did this on their website, or Google, or Facebook, Instagram, X et al... It just needs to be disappeared and moved to a settings/profile page. I understand that this will almost certainly be a property of the forum template rather than how it is configured, but if that's the case then feedback needs to go to the forum team that this decision needs to be revisited. I am going to bet the Admins a whole Mars bar 😉 that is already going on for other forums that use this software - let's see...

Whether we believe this is a blind alley or not is unfortunately pretty much irrelevant. The CAA and UK Gov have been preparing for this for a long time, spending money with consultancies (and another example) and talking with countries across the world to ensure they are globally aligned. They know what their target outcome is - if there is even a slight chance of money and jobs to be had from legislation that fosters investment in the UK, they are going to legislate to support it, and (whether we agree or disagree) RID is seen as a key element of that. I am 100% certain that RID will be implemented; the only question is what (if any) exemptions or exceptions will be made to accomodate recreational model flyers.

Good tip, but (whilst this is a minor inconvenience in the short term) I still think the root cause that leaves the blue blob displayed should be addressed 1 this is the only site I use that permanently displays cookie options with no option to fully remove.

Can I ask why you think that, when RID has been implemented in Switzerland, France and Japan, and is well underway in the US? RID also became law for the Specific category across the EU on Jan 1st this year. Why would the UK authorities push back on it when countries all around the world are going down this route, and they are being told by lobbyists and big business that there are jobs and tax £££s to be had?

I don't think Steve was inferring the BMFA have not been paying attention. He is simply pointing out that the BMFA response to the (entirely predictable and much anticipated) questions about RID and geo-fencing in the August 23 request for response were a) delivered quite late in that consultation process which won't have helped with response rates, and b) not reflective of the majority of views of their members. Even so, when 60% of respondents disagreed with these proposals/"opportunities", the CAA totally ignored that feedback created the more formal proposals in CAP2610 where hybrid RID and geo-awareness/fencing are both front and centre. The only "concessions" were a few hazy promises that model flying will be protected thrown in, none of which are worth much until we see the final proposed rules. Given that, why should we believe the result will be suddenly be different this time around? As I've stated before, I have friends who have operated within civil service who tell me that central Government is often pretty directive (off he record) in "consultations" like this, tasking the agency in question (in this case the CAA) with a target output. They have confirmed cynical tactics are often used, such as: proposing extreme solutions they can water down to their (always intended) final version, so that they can show they "listened" to the consultation wording questions to make them harder to understand and more time consuming to respond to iming the release for periods where response rates are likely to be lower (e,.g. over xmas or summer holiday periods) are regularly used. I will be very happy to be proved wrong, but I do believe UK Gov (not the CAA; they are just operating under their direction) have already decided what is going to happen here, and are going to implement it whatever the feedback says. Ultimately though we do have to play along and respond, even if that is ultimately futile - the time for legal challenges etc. is not yet here.

Only 12 hrs to respond if you have put it off until now... Link below: https://consultations.caa.co.uk/rpas/review-of-uk-uas-regulations-consultation/ Remember the example BMFA/LMA responses are in your email if you are a member - I personally do not agree with all of them, but they are a decent starting point when authoring your own responses. Remember that even if you don't write anything in a comments field, your response will still influence the stats associated with each question, and increasing the overall number of responses from model aircraft pilots can only be a good thing.

Yes, whilst that’s no major issue on a PC or tablet device with a largish screen, it’s very annoying on a mobile. The blue blob takes up quite a lot of real estate, especially when creating or editing a post - this screenshot was taken whilst writing this one…

Isn't printing the tail likely to put a lot of weight back there that will require extra noseweight to balance? Your skills are undeniable, but I'm not sure in this case a printed tail will be the best idea... What is the projected weight?

Finally got round to submitting mine today after leaving it sitting in draft over xmas... Amused to see they issue a 13-digit response ID for all surveys, by my maths that allows for ~36^13 potential submissions. If we get that many even UK Gov may think again! 😉

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.