GONZO

Jason-I I think you will be one of an initial BMFA leavers group which will, in the second year, become an avalanche. This will no doubt be aided by the inevitable increase in the annual model tax registration fee. May I also suggest that just registering as a pilot gets your details on the system and makes you a 'person of interest' if you don't also register as an operator or do not have an employer taking the 'operator' role.

As a point of interest the piston/liner set from the Thunder Tiger 25GP is an exact fit in the OS 25FP and has a boost port. I have two OS 25FP so modified, as yet un run. Everything else also appears to be interchangeable. My TT 25 GP turns a master 9X6 @12,000rpm on 10% fuel.

Yes, I've read all that again but according to the document and chart on page 32 of CAP 1789 plus some more recent information we still have to register, pay, take free on line foundation test of competency followed by a paid for test at a test center to gain a Certificate of Competency. Additionally, the site/airspace requirements of A3 which the majority of our models(C4 classification) will be required to operate in still applies and will mean many clubs ceasing operations. What/how does your interpretation differ? Thanks for listing the various documents that confirm that as at present CL is lumped in with the rest of us.

I've been following this issue of CL registration on the BARTON forum and it is considered that CL planes will have to register unless a concession is granted. The current concession, that people misinterpret, is for flying CL in the newly declared 'zones' around airports/airfields. [CL planes are tethered like kites(which do not have to register) but are remotely controlled by the pilot. It seems it is a 'grey' area.] The DfT are following the EU EASA regs but are not taking up the option of making a concession for model flying as allowed in the regs. They are being, IMO and I would suggest the majority of aero modellers, un necessarily harsh in their interpretation/implementation of the EU regs. Edited By GONZO on 04/08/2019 10:54:27

The only issue I see with this approach is one of ownership. A problem which I believe can be overcome. We offer our planes to the 'company' for them to lease off of us for the coming year. In turn the 'company' then issues them back to us as custodians for the coming year. All this to be documented(minimal) and for nominal fees. Or, a scheme along these lines that side steps the ownership issue. Thoughts and comments?

OFF THE SHELF LLC There you go for starters.

Here, here Pete. My thoughts on the matter exactly. I shall be doing the same as you, a wait and see game. Although, I am actively looking at sub 250gm and boats.

C8, further to your last comment. A little story to illustrate 'the problem'. Earlier this week a friend of mine was with his wife walking their dog on the beach at Colwyn Bay. My friend was on the prom when a car turned up and a man got out with a drone. He set it on the pavement, turned it on and in the words of my friend, "threw a switch, pushed a button and it shot up to a reasonable height and just stopped and hovered". He then continued to fly it around for a while before landing on the pavement of the prom, packing it away and leaving in his car. I've had several incidents of drones popping up from amongst the houses where I live in Abergele and one with a DJI Mavic just over the back of my garden wall in the woods. I spoke to the owner of the Mavic and he was totally unaware of any national organisations(BMFA, FPVUK, CAA, etc) or any rules/regulations. IMO the genie is out of the bottle. Of course I've never heard of any 'delivery' drone flights in my area, let alone seen one!

I was under the impression both had to be displayed. Otherwise, how do you determine who was the 'flyer'/culprit if there is a transgression involving the 'drone' being subsequently seized. Although, unless caught in the act it would be difficult to successfully prosecute as it would be easy to claim that the drone had been stolen etc. Its only in the recreational model flyer situation where the 'operator' and 'flyer' are one and the same and the transgressor can possibly be identified from the operator registration number. It would still be necessary to catch someone in the act to remove all doubt. The other issue still remains regarding whether the club is the 'operator', as it owns the planes, or should it be one of the club members doing the training? IMO all this nonsense with numbers just goes to show what meaningless idiocy it is. Its no more than a smoke screen for a money grab.

Pete, what about the situation in my club. The club bought and owns two trainers with associated equipment. there is a custodian/main trainer with others occasionally doing the training. So, does the club register as the operator, pay the fee and get a number to put on the outside of the plane? Does the trainer put his 'flyer' number(whoever it may be at the time) on the outside along with the 'flyer' number of the trainee? Lots of numbers, changing regularly with no one able to see them when in the air and I would think no one ever checking them on the ground. Absolute load of nonsense!

Michael Barclay, Rang the BMAA(British Microlight Aircraft Association) for info on sub 70kg foot launched aircraft; NO licence, NO medical or self declaration, NO registration for the aircraft or pilot, NO competency tests, in fact 'no nuffin!' Just 'buy and fly' preferably with a short training course to stop you killing yourself. Para Motor Glider anyone?

Mr Fry, Tony Heller has never claimed that. It's more your problem, I suspect, of not understanding the information. A fellow traveller in toy aeroplanes, quite likely. Mates, unlikely. Anyhow, I have more important things to do with my time right now, like letting my dogs out for a wee, than to indulge you in inane and pointless arguments, fun though they are.

Simon, I checked out the Delyn MFC flying site by using Google maps. I placed a series of 150mtr circles centered on the nearest point to the runway center point. Thus, I got a rough boundary for the extent of flying. It was somewhat illuminating to see just how restrictive this can be. I would recommend that those interested do the same.

"Gobby noisy disrupters on the internet, claiming whatever they like, remain gobby and noisy." This is a totally unfounded, unwarranted, rude and insulting attack on the young guy who is a 'Beta' tester for the scheme and the other presenter who has made many well received/reviewed videos. No sane and sober individual would class the presentation in this video as 'goby, noisy disrupters claiming whatever they liked'. Another contributor to another forum, who is also a 'beta' tester has reported some of the same issues. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that any of the information is incorrect or even slightly stretched in any way? If this is the only contribution you can add to this thread then perhaps you could refrain from personal attacks and keep your subjective opinions to yourself. Otherwise you risk being defined by your own comment. It's much better to keep things civil, don't you think? Anyhow, as you live in France and have a cheaper/easier scheme this should be of no more than academic interest to you. You presume to much when you refer to me as your 'mate'.

Yes , but there are variables in these documents. An example is Article 16 Operations under the framework of model aircraft clubs and associations. which this country has decided to not adopt.

Yes, but the info in the video is supposed to be where we are now which I presume has moved on from the primary documents as they just formed a starting point. The young guy in the video states he has been involved in the beta testing of the scheme so it would not be unreasonable to assume he has some understanding of what's happening. Are you similarly involved in the scheme Steve J?

There were several items from this video that I was not aware of(new items?). Below 250gm geofenced range and RF power limit and the selectable 40mph speed limit, is this ground speed or airspeed? Then there is the second test from July next year which will be required to fly most aircraft from most locations. The 150mtr separation limit between plane and people/locations etc would not be from the centre of the runway but from the furthest extent of any flight path. I've checked on Google maps and my local club does not comply unless only flying out of the SE corner and that's if we can guarantee the farmer is not there. Most planes range out at least 150mtr(500ft) then add the required 150mtr to that plus a safety margin, say a total of 400mtr(1300ft +) from the center point of the runway. I would think most clubs fall foul of this with at least a footpath or access road not under their total control coming within this distance. Consider the problems of this when applied to slope soaring sites like the Great Orme. So, the competency test this autumn is a foundation test with a certificate of competency in addition, from July next year, to be taken at test centres and not online.

A bit easier than ploughing through a document even with the narrators poor presentation skills. Just come off the phone to the BMAA(British Microlight Aircraft Association). I was checking up on the regs surrounding sub 70kg foot launched aircraft. They confirmed that I was correct in my understanding; NO pilot licence required, No medical or declaration required, NO registration of the foot launched aircraft, No competency test of any kind. You can just buy an fly with land owner permission. Or, where I am the beach as I see frequently. Cost £3,500 to £5,000 and advisable to take a short training coarse.

I don't understand why people are so dismissive and or can't even be bothered to listen. It's not meant to be entertaining or nice to listen to. It's supposed to be informative although the speaker could be better and the essential information conveyed quicker. Go to 16:00 min and listen from there. Not everything is set but as I said it gives an idea of how the rule makers are thinking. Or, has every one got sick and tired of it just like the 'Brexit saga'? On another forum a member is carrying out a 'straw poll' by asking other flyers he meets " What are you intending to do about the new regulation?" The overwhelming response is "What new regulations?" As a group aero modellers seem to exhibit an unusually high level apathy and optimism. Well, I've posted it, up to others to decide to listen or not. Edited By GONZO on 08/07/2019 14:14:55

Listen and enjoy From 16:00 on mention of additional test and flying area/spacing plus CE marking of kits/ARTF and ready to fly. I know some of this is not set but indicates the direction of travel, it's not good. Note it's not just 1/11/2019 as a significant date but 1/7/2020. I'd listen to it a couple of times to get these indications of what may be coming straight in your mind. UK Drone Law Update

I've got a few MDS and they all work fine for me, but they do all have the later carb with the rubber sealing boot on the carb barrel. My 38 has had several sets of bearings(20+ years old) and only gave me trouble when the carb to crankcase 'o' ring went hard and cracked due to age causing intermittent air leak. My 48's just keep trundling along. A final thought, they were built for Europe and don't need high nitro fuel, 5% is more than enough.

Steve J, yes but registration was understood to be via membership of the national organisation and the use of their data base. Not an additional process that required the payment of an additional fee. IIRC the phrase bandied about was 'things will be much the same as they are now and we will not notice any changes', or words to that effect.

I hear what you both say. But, a little while back we were all lead to believe, and most did so, that we would be operating under 'Article 16'. That was stopped and we now find ourselves being used as a revenue stream. I just don't trust them! Edited By GONZO on 04/07/2019 19:25:53

Steve J, so what does that mean? During this hiatus I've done some re reading. Article 16 Operations under the framework of model aircraft clubs and associations. This option has been firmly closed to us in this country by the powers that be. Yes/no? The other concerning aspect in the document that contains 'article 16' seems to suggest that all model kits and ARTF kits sold in EASA countries will have to be CE tested and fully comply thus adding significantly to the costs, that is if manufacturers don't just abandon the market. Section reproduced below. What is the opinion of people on this. A key element of the Open category is that any unmanned aircraft that are sold for use within this category will also be subject to a set of product standards, similar to the ‘CE’ marking scheme" "The full details of the product standards for each class are set out in the Annex to the Delegated Regulation and include a requirement to include an EASA published information leaflet in the packaging which simply describes the applicable limitations and obligations under EU law in the form of a ‘do’ and don’t’ list. Remember, these standards only apply to unmanned aircraft that are intended to be sold in the EU market, either fully assembled or in kit form.