MattyB

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:

In the section of the video where investigate the CG position, you talk about plank and swept flying wings interchangeably. They are aerodynamically very different, so I wouldn't put much weight behind the calculation from the swept flying wing calculator. This may be of interest, though there is quite a lot of maths involved! https://www.mh-aerotools.de/airfoils/flywing1.htm What you have there is very definitely a plank - there is almost no sweep at the mean chord point, and based on your build video you did not put any twist into the tips. Based on that you should probably seek to stabilise it with a more forward CG and reflex (assuming you are not using the elevator any more - I could not tell whether your flight videos were with or without that operating, sorry). Even then, I suggest you investigate whether you have some wash-in that was introduced by the "cut and shut" when you removed the dihedral during the build.

That is absolutely possible from an HA perspective once you have the myenergi plugin. I suspect Octopus might catch on though after a bit...!

OK, but a test with (say) a Frsky TX and the Frsky compatible receiver can still be valid in discounting the RX as a root cause if it passes as per that TX's range test instructions. After all, all we are trying to do initially is discount the RX(s) from the "suspect component / potential root cause" list. Anyway, I still think the telemetry logging is the key step, in particular to look at the SWR ratings - see this post for some explanation... https://www.openrcforums.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=115049&sid=ab1ce0f371a21e4770ced405a0ca7c47#p115049

If you have a Givenergy system, I would recommend you just install PredBat which uses solar predictions, past usage information and upcoming tariff info (including your IO periods which it can get via the Octopus plugin for HA) to top up the battery intelligently to the minimum levels to get you through the day at least cost. I have ben running it for just over a week now, and it seems to be pretty good so far. https://springfall2008.github.io/batpred/ What is predbat, and what does it do? Setup videos on Loom Introduction video GivTCP Facebook group for help and support

You don't necessarily need a Radiomaster TX. You should be able to test the Spek receivers with Spektrum, Frsky compatibles with Frsky etc. Doing the test with telemetry logging is still important IMO before @Graham Davies 3 replaces the board and antenna, otherwise he won't know be able to determine any differences with the new setup once it is installed.

I am still waiting for the Zappi IO integration to go live "proper", then I think I will move to Intelligent. We will lose out a bit on export, but have much lower cost home battery and car charging. I'm not sure it will make a major difference to our bills, but it should be more convenient.

Had you enabled telemetry logs on the flight with the R88 receiver? If so that may be instructive. Based on your diagnosis so far I would say the most likely issue is with the aerial, but if you don’t have telemetry logging setup I’d do that now, then do a full ground range test with the R88, then provide that to HobbyRC for their review.

You are quite right, there isn't. My only point is that I personally would not put my Op ID on an aircraft that was to be flown regularly by others when I am not present. Others may be fine with it, and it's certainly not breaking the rules, but for me the legal risks associated are too high for me to accept my number going on a club trainer that could be flown by anyone in the club. YMMV. PS - Organisations (e.g. a club in this case) can register as an Operator too if you prefer that route, but it looks like the the ultimate responsibility to ensure operator requirements are met does still sit with an individual... Who can register your organisation The person who completes the registration must be authorised to be the accountable manager for drones and model aircraft in the organisation. The accountable manager will be responsible for making sure that the organisation flies and uses drones and model aircraft safely and legally. You can change the accountable manager at any time. Before you start You'll need: the accountable manager’s home address and contact details the organisation’s registered number, for example its registered company number or charity number

I would personally never put my Op. ID onto a club model that could be flown without me being present. Remember, by adding your ID you are formally accepting legal responsibility in line with Andy Symon's post above, even if you aren't present to check the model over or supervise the remote pilot(s). I can't see any of these responsibilities that I would be ok to put my hand up for unless I was present at the time of the flight... Ensure the remote pilot is in possession of the relevant remote pilot competence requirements Ensure that the model aircraft is sufficiently maintained, and that any repairs carried out to it are satisfactorily made, such that it is in a safe condition to be flown; Ensure that the remote pilot is aware of the limitations and conditions of the BMFA Article 16 authorisation; (assuming Article 16 flights) Ensure that the remote pilot is aware of the rules and procedures of the BMFA; Ensure that any necessary additional permissions or authorisations are obtained for any specific flight; Ensure the remote pilot is aware of any relevant airspace limitations. Far better to utilise something akin to the old 35MHz "peg on" system - the model has a small transparent panel made out of a bit of old display wallet or similar glued to the side, into which bits of paper can be placed with the relevant Op. ID for that day, then the holder gets taped shut. Then do all the normal pre-flight checks as if it was your own model, and fly. Finally the Op. ID is removed by the pilot at the end of the session and put in his flight box so it can't be used without their presence. Problem solved.

Aerodynamically they fly pretty well, but Max Thrust models do seem to be built down to a price. Nothing lots of careful checking and the odd mod can't address, but they may have a short life if those steps are missed.

If you ever need to find your old content, just go to your profile and click on ... https://forums.modelflying.co.uk/index.php?/profile/2932-diamond-geezer/content/