MattyB
-
Posts
4,549 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Posts posted by MattyB
-
-
23 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:
Sorry to correct you here but I'm not convinced by anything ,,,,, nothing is as yet been set in stone so it would be good to wait and see what actually happens and how its going to happen and work when and only when the CAA officially give out such information then and only then will we all be sure and certain about what will happen and what will be required of us, our clubs & other rc fliers
Have you actually read what the national associations have put out in their recommendations? They are not suggesting we "wait and see", but are actively encouraging members to respond, and for most of the question around RID they are disagreeing with the proposals. In short, they don't favour your BOHICA approach which would only lead to the CAA and UK Gov over-reaching as far as they possibly can to erode our access to the lower airspace and long held flying sites.
-
26 minutes ago, GrumpyGnome said:
As it stands, I can't see anyone being identifiable from their Op ID if someone intercepts the data we're discussing. I'm happy to be corrected.
My instinct is to agree, but the wording in that proposal is very specific in stating Op ID would be classified as personal information under UK GDPR, so perhaps that is the legal advice they have received?
-
58 minutes ago, Ron Gray said:
From the response document:
we will ensure that personally identifiable
information, such as Operator ID, is not made available to the general public, and
is protected by robust security controls.
In the very next paragraph
The pilot or ground control station location data would be visible to
those able to receive and interpret Direct Remote ID data, as it is not technically
possible to encrypt this data to only be viewable by certain user groups. The pilot’s
location will therefore only be available publicly if Network Remote ID is not
enabled.
Indeed. That whole section of the document is a mess, and my comments on those questions will point that out. They certainly didn't do a QA check...
-
7 minutes ago, GaryWebb said:
Thats down to clubs and their members to vote on & decided to register as an authorised flying site or not but the that do then Remote Id will therefore be irrelevant
No, it's not - read the proposal! A flying site can apply for authorisation, but in the current proposals it appears to be the CAA that get to decide whether it get's authorised, as in the US and France. That means, many established flying sites could be ruled out just because the CAA doesn't like a distance to an individual building or some other relatively minor factor, and that's it - you are using RID or packing up at that site. And don't forget, any new site that you try and find will also then need to be authorised before you can fly RID free, so finding sites that meets the CAA's gating recommendations adds another layer of complexity to site moves.
-
3
-
-
On 10/12/2023 at 11:42, John Muir said:
The problem with the Radiomaster receivers appears to be that they need to have the transmitter tuned to each specific receiver to compensate for poor quality components and/or poor QC. You can do this with the MPM but not a genuine FrSky module as there is no need for this with proper FrSky receivers. With up to date firmware and a FrSky receiver on matching firmware you will almost certainly get very good range. With a Radiomaster, who knows? It might be a decent match, it might not. My FrSky stuff all works very well. The Radiomaster receivers have long threads full of complaints and problems over on RC Groups where the they appear to have come to the conclusion that some of them are fine, while others are not. Personally, I don't feel this inspires confidence.
@Graham Davies 3, based on my testing with those RM RXs using known good TXs and those threads mentioned by John Muir with less than positive feedback(!), the best thing to do here is junk the Radiomaster RXs and focus on identifying whether satisfactory performance can be extracted from your current TX using the XJT and/or internal MPM modules. The best way to do that is to flash the XJT and Frsky RXs to matching firmware, then redo the tests using the same Frsky RX and in D16 mode using both the MPM and the XJT module, comparing range test and RSSI data for both. That will at least tell you if the MPM has a more fundamental issue.
If the results are still mixed/inconsistent and you still aren't confident at that point, do some of the tests mentioned by @RottenRow above; they are all good suggestions that will allow you to eliminate one potential point of failure at a time.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, Martin Dance 1 said:
Some recently published research suggests that electronic conspicuity is at best only effective about 50% of the time, reasons being that systems are incompatible or are not fitted to all aircraft. Where they are fitted the system may issue a warning about an aircraft ten miles away. The pilot then focusses his attention on that warning and may miss the non equipped aircraft a mile away. Where does that leave the reliability of RID?
To save @steve toohaving to point it out 😉, RID is not the same as electronic conspicuity, even seemingly in it's hybrid form requested by the CAA. Resources:
From the first CAA consultation earlier this year (see highlighted yellow text)...
Steve's clarifying post on this later on...
-
23 hours ago, Bruce Collinson said:
Isn't the mantra, c of g forward, flies badly; c of g rearward, flies once? Nevertheless I take your point but am keen to hear where the c of g sweet spot is.
It is, but as I said, it's common knowledge that Silvestri sets up all his models with very forward CGs, well further forward than most people like them. Why he does that I don't know, but every Sebart I've seen has ended up with a CG further back than the marked point in the manual. That can't just be random chance...
15 hours ago, Philip Lewis 3 said:OK just measured mine, C of G measured with slightly heavier batteries than I used to use to fly it with (which I don't have any more), comes out at 165mm from the front of the wing where it meets the fuselage so when flown with the lighter pack would have been behind that.
12 hours ago, Bruce Collinson said:165/rear of the tube is a long way from 145 and will certainly get it much closer before ballasting. Funny how often the wing tube is about right for c of g.
This sounds pretty much bang on what I'd expect in terms of the amount the CG moved from stock position on a 50e sized Sebart. 20-25mm back from the marked position is (from memory) pretty much where I have ended up with my Miss Wind - the 6S pack has to sit right at the very back of the battery bay, and I think I needed a tiny bit of tail weight to achieve the final position.
-
Yeah, I haven't watched it yet but as soon as I saw the premise for Vigil's second season I knew it was definitely going to "help" us... 🤨
-
52 minutes ago, David Davis said:
We've recently all been issued with an individual pilot's number which is nineteen digits long. These also have to be stuck to the airframe. Quite why we've been required to do this is beyond my understanding. The pilot could be easily identified from the model's registration number.
Almost certainly because that ID has been formatted with RID in mind i.e. it has a checksum incorporated in line with the EU requirements (this has been discussed before, do a search on "checksum" in this forum).
-
32 minutes ago, Arthur Harris said:
We are overlooking the fact that models 250gms or under are exempt from these regulations. I've never flown a model this small, so I don't know what they are like, but perhaps that is the new direction of our hobby? Everything is being miniaturized so it is worth bearing in mind.
Congratulations, you have just proved that you haven't read the latest consultation document. Look again...
Background starts here:
-
1
-
1
-
-
I need to give it another more detailed read, but my instant reaction is that (as expected) the BMFA/LMA response is a little too conciliatory for my taste; I don’t believe they used “Definitely disagree” anywhere. I will be being a fair bit more robust in my response when it comes to challenging the “evidence” presented and the rationale for RID for model flyers, especially in such this high cost and complex hybrid (network and broadcast) form.
-
2
-
-
Sebart factory CGs are notoriously nose heavy; every modeller I’ve seen with a Sebart (including me on my Miss Wind) end up flying them with a CG well behind where the manual recommends. I would not worry too much if you can’t achieve their position if it looks reasonable n a TLAR check.
-
34 minutes ago, Arthur Harris said:
Increased regulation will lead to regulated flying. If rogue flying was banned by say, National Parks (people throwing gliders over cliffs or hills willy-nilly), or by councils banning park fliers, the people concerned would need to join clubs. It would be a win-win for us.
Increased regulation that is disproportionate, complex and highly unlikely to be enforced leads to increased rates of deliberate and accidental non-compliance, not higher club membership. If you think any new pilot who has bought a 150g toy with a camera on it are suddenly going to dutifully leap online to get flyer and Op IDs and join a club because the regs have changed, you’re in fantasy land.
As for the slope sparing example, well, you can’t have done much sloping or met those who enjoy it… Do you really believe the average sloper is going to pack up their hobby and join a power club, or fit RID at great expense inside skinny composite fuselages that block transmission, or travel hundreds of miles to a registered slope site where RID is not required? The chance of enforcement at the average slope is literally zero - hmmm, I wonder what option people will choose…
-
5
-
-
2 minutes ago, Arthur Harris said:
But it may ensure the future of the hobby. If there is a crackdown on park flyers and rogue flyers in public places, club membership will become more popular.
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?
-
22 hours ago, 911hillclimber said:
Pondered though on the question of balance, but with battery in place (3 cell) and 30g of weight in the nose to achieve a slight nose down when balanced on the main spar position of the wing. I hope this is right!
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.
-
14 minutes ago, Simon Chaddock said:
...With the flaps up and with the same CoG position not surprisingly it flies just as well as the my unflapped FX707 so no problem at all.
However as soon as flap is applied it quickly runs out of down trim to compensate for the nose up pitch. In some respects I expected this as I normally set a bit more up elevator travel than down...
There the solution was to set the elevator position so it needed almost full up trim to fly level so increasing the down trim range.
I will do the same for the flapped FX707 bur thinking about it I can do a bit better. By moving the servo arm one spline anti clockwise it will impart some mechanical elevator differential movement, more down than up, which will further increase the down trim range all be it at the expense of some up elevator travel.
Just as well I had not permanently fixed the push/pull lines.
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).
-
3 minutes ago, steve too said:
Response form for CAP 2610.
https://consultations.caa.co.uk/rpas/review-of-uk-uas-regulations-consultation/consultation/intro/
35 days left to respond.
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.
-
21 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:
My goodness, has it taken you all this time to realise that?
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.
21 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:...Why do you think there is a specific comment in Article 16 that states that a single rotor machine can be flown above 400 ft provided its AUW does not exceed 7.5 kg but if you have more than 1 rotor you are limited to 400 ft?
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)."
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:
Thank you Matty.
Number ones something we've done in part, but apathy sadly lessens any impact that could've brought.
Number two, fair comment but I would think discussions have been had about legal challenges, my own view is, that would be money wasted sadly, maybe I got old and lost the will to fight but that route looks like an act of self harm, spending money we shall need for no gain.
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. 😞
-
2
-
-
38 minutes ago, john stones 1 - Moderator said:
I've read some good posts and some good replies the last few pages. I struggle when it's said "we should stop playing along and letting others set the agenda" ?
Easy said, but how do we go about that ? Where is this magic bullet ?
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.
-
2
-
3 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:
Well Matty, looks like the BMFA are ahead of the game and that your pearls of wisdom aren't quite as shiny as you thought. Surprising really!
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.
1 hour ago, Andy Symons - BMFA said:This is entirely wrong. the Article 16 authorisation applies to all individual members of the BMFA and not the club. Whether the site is legally flyable is absolutely nothing to do with whether the club is affiliated.
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.
-
2 hours ago, GrumpyGnome said:
Well, the centre has been on at least three relatively mainstream tv programmes....... maybe this didn't result in an increase in members per se, but it may have lessened declining numbers. Apparently, "there's no such thing as bad publicity".......
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?
1 hour ago, Peter Miller said:I see people bellyaches about a pretty small increase on the BMFA membership fee. This covers a very valuable insurance scheme.
I would love to hear their screams of total agony at the increase in their car insurance. Perhaps those who say that they will give up model flying will also give up driving??!!
1 hour ago, ken anderson. said:Thing is Peter...the ones in the forum who complain.....don't represent the total BMFA membership....in reality the rise is small compared to other increases going on....as you mentioned car insurance ☠️
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.
1 hour ago, Ron Gray said:The cost of mounting a legal battle would have far exceeded the amount of reserves we had and do you really think that it will make a difference or would have made a difference?
Whilst I will fight against the latest proposals I'm also resigned to the fact that changes will be made, including RID. I absolutely hate the idea that RID or worse NRID will be forced upon some of us (including me when I fly at areas other than my club's site) and I am at peace with my conscious for taking the course of action I will be taking when that time comes in 4 + years.
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.
44 minutes ago, steve too said:The BMFA membership is dropping. The BMFA are the most expensive of the UK associations. They are over twice the price of the cheapest option. In these circumstances, putting the fees up rather than aggressively cutting costs is suicide.
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).
-
5 hours ago, leccyflyer said:
Sorry Matty - if ever an illustration were needed that all of this nonsense really ought to be nothing to do with flying model aeroplanes, there it is, right there. The guy is pretty much exclusively talking about drones. The lack of differentiation in the regulations between model aeroplanes, with decades of operation across the country and these totally alien drones is coming to bite us again and again - on-board remote ID will be required even for sub 250g models and Flyer ID will also be required? It's completely outrageous imposition on model flyers - it would be better if drones had never been invented. We certainly wouldn't be having these endless consultations and new rounds of regulations if they hadn't.
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.
Enforcement of model flying regulations
in All Things Model Flying
Posted · Edited by MattyB
They could also quite easily argue the solar farm as a whole is an "industrial site", and with so many panels well within the 150m minimum distance it would be very difficult to challenge. Based on the photo, I don't believe you could fly that site legally under the current regs without a national association Article 16 authorisation.