John Bisset
-
Posts
251 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Calendar
Downloads
Posts posted by John Bisset
-
-
This does seem a significant step forward, potentially. Well done the BMFA, my fingers crossed for possible progress and continuing outbreak of sense amongst authorities.
As Steve says, in full size flying we don't have to resit the exams; we are expected to keep our knowledge up to date, on all the issues to do with our flying licences and competence. No reason why we shouldn't do the same as model fliers, though I share some irritation at the idea of an online test which effectively can't be failed. That is pointless.
I thought the presentation was reasonably crisp and clearly written without excess verbiage, and it got the points across well. I wasn't sure what the last collage of images meant to show but that is minor. As for the font , it has the advantage of being clean and bright, easy to read, especially for those with interpretation difficulties or dyslexia - I understand the sans serif fonts are preferred for that. It helped convey a hopeful & cheery message to me!
Edited By John Bisset on 08/10/2019 09:24:19
Edited By John Bisset on 08/10/2019 09:24:37
Edited By John Bisset on 08/10/2019 09:24:49
Edited By John Bisset on 08/10/2019 09:25:12
-
Thanks Doc - sad to hear.
I wonder if that means the likes of 'highpeak models' - I shall contact them (thanks i12fly) will be able to continue supplying to order, or whether someone else could possibly buy over the rights to the company's products?
Cheers,
John B
-
True enough Don. Way outside his comfort zone, fairly clearly and quite understandably.
It irritates that he then goes on to describe this as a serious crime when it appears no clear evidence exists of a crime - that isn't clever, it is playing to the gallery. (I think we are well aware just how readily certain elements of our national press grab any chance to be offended, 'concerned' and 'disturbed' by things they don't understand !
To my mind this sort of behaviour diminishes the reputation of the police generally.
-
Posted by Don Fry on 27/09/2019 15:16:26:Posted by Nigel R on 27/09/2019 12:08:24:
And you would hope the police were trained to avoid such bias in witness accounts.
Nope, the rules of evidence are known, but what does a copper know about drones Why should a copper know much about drones or perspective or distance perception.
Quite right - there is no good reason an average copper should have to know anything about drones. I'd hope most would have at least some idea of human behaviour - and hence how human beings perceive things. After, being a copper is all about working with people, for people (supposedly)
Those looking into this at a higher level ought to have such knowledge, and the senior officer who commented in the report about this being a serious criminal act etc., should at least have included a caveat that no hard evidence was found. Pontificating has so much more impact than going for factual clarity, of course !
-
Meantime I see the Gatwick Police are taking a leaf from others in officialdom - carefully leaving out important bits of information in a report to give a somewhat biased impression.
The report into the 'drone' incident at Gatwick carefully sidesteps the fact that no hard evidence exists of any unauthorised drone being active there. Only 'eye-witness' accounts, despite many man-hours of effort. Lats information I had was that the only proven drone sightings were of police drones, searching
Eye witnesses are notoriously poor witnesses. We mean well but human brains immediately interpret what we see and then find it hard to challenge that interpretation. As a pilot myself I also know how easy it is to be fooled by perspective and distance. Honest reports no doubt, but no evidence. Strange how that is left out. Assertions, no hard facts.
Nonetheless this sort of dubious stuff is being used a a stick to beat us with. Hey ho.
-
Hi Martin_K. Yes, as a fullsize aircraft & occasional sailplane pilot as well as a modeller I am quite concerned about some of the possible implications of the thinking behind new rules for 'access to the airspace'.
Recent events like the airspace restrictions around Farnborough and the deplorably ignorant and biased views of that Baroness suggest that things are likely to get worse unless we push back as strongly as we can, supporting whatever bodies we have that will fight our corner.
These things will spread unless we take care. 'The great and the good' are typically neither - far too often they are increasingly shown to be selfish, narrow thinking & sadly ignorant
Sometimes the only way to fight the depression resulting from these thoughts is to go fly - whatever I can !
-
Posted by Ron Gray on 24/09/2019 22:26:27:
Trouble is, this is now changing as on board flight controllers (e.g Matek Fixed Wing) together with suitable software (e.g iNav) enable autonomous control of 'planes with no input from the operator other than maybe a hand launch!. So the boundaries are even more blurred!
Oh I know, Ron, and It will not get easier. (Sigh) However I believe we could cover the vast bulk of the cases easily this way if we wanted to, leaving the hybrids and outliers like these to be dealt with as exceptions.
To me, one snag is that lawyers do like to try to write statements that cover every case, exhaustively. A great ideal but often not achievable in the real, warts and all, world.
In my experience they usually fail, despite their very best efforts. Either something gets missed, or the wordings get too convoluted - and you know where we go from there. I've had few dealings with lawyers where there weren't at least two conflicting views on the interpretation of wordings in documents.
In the - modified - words of Sir Sidney Camm : 'Simplify and add more Clarity'. He said 'lightness, but the quote still works for me... Or as engineers often say,'use the KISS principle.
-
(start of part two)
Normal radio control model aircraft do not require a means of onboard navigation.
So, right there we have some clear ways to differentiate adequately between - most - radio control model aircraft (RCMAs) and the sorts of UAVs which are the main concern.
A radio control aircraft is an inherently stable machine which requires routine direct intervention by its operator, hence is flown only within visual range of its operator and has no (autonomously operable) onboard navigation system. That is an RCMA.
A ‘drone’ or MRUAV/LMCPUAV, requires an onboard autonomous or semi-autonomous computer operated stabilisation system in order to operate; it also requires an onboard navigation system to allow operation beyond visual range. That is what the public call ‘drones’.
Logically, since the main concern is to ensure the remote operated self navigating machines don’t enter restricted areas, it may be necessary for a legal requirement to be laid down that any onboard navigation system is GPD based with geo fencing installed and updated according to some prescribed schedule.
Right – I suggest that is a start which shows some clear definable differences. Sure we can blur the boundaries if we want to make things difficult, be excessively ‘legalistic’ (for want of a better word) and aim to cover EVERY eventuality and possibility. That is not how engineering works though, and nor – I’d suggest – despite their claims is it how lawyers and the law works.
I await the inevitable flak !
-
OK. That has been said before, Martin_K – understood & thanks.
I’m an engineer not a lawyer, so I think differently, approach it differently. Let’s see, let’s give it a first shot.
Not bothered about the similarity of frequencies & radios used etc. for now – those are red herrings.
Yes, there can be crossover and that can go to a very high level, however for 99% of OUR purposes differentiation is relatively straightforward.
Start with this –
Radio control model aircraft are generally inherently stable, hence they do not require computer control or intervention to make them operable. (Yes there are some that have computer augmentation systems, to allow easy learning, recovery from errors and advanced flight options. But they atre typically augmentations , not the primary means of control or of in flight stability)
Radio control model aircraft do require direct intervention by the operator/pilot to maintain their flight path. That intervention interval may vary depending on the level of inherent stability in the craft.
Multi rotor aerial unmanned vehicles – are the main objects of concern for midair collisions, for privacy invasion, for illegal drug drops , for random damage to property when they fail in mid flight (as recent trials in Switzerland have highlighted). They also operate beyond visual range, which is not done with normal radio control aircraft.
These multi rotor machines require computer control for stability – they cannot fly without it. The level of control varies from machine to machine.
Any unmanned aerial vehicle which is used for operation outwith visual range requires some means of onboard navigation. This may be an inertial navigation system (rare nowadays and unpopular because of inherent drift effects) or a GPS based navigation system.
Let’s call them MRUAVs and LMCPUAVs - ‘multi rotor UAVs’ and ‘large military or commercial purpose UAVS’.
(end of part one)
-
Thanks for that David, I suspected that might be the case. Shall avoid that route and perhaps enquire on here!
So - has anyone got a Flair Bristol Fighter kit or plans available? It looks a superb model
-
"I wish that people would stop using the word." - Steve J.
I agree Steve; the words used matter, especially because the non-involved will pick up the wrong impression. More precision needed.
Sadly the authorities caused confusion from the outset by not adequately distinguishing model aircraft & their flying from the use & operation of autonomous or semi-autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).
I was going to say we need new wording , but really we don't., We need to encourage people to use the correct language - which of course will get us viewed as pedantic.
Fine, I am an engineer and I am required to be pedantic ! (You don't want an engineer glibly saying your aeroplane or structure is safe without him or her being obsessively careful checking the whole thing fully, now do you?)
-
Thank you Denis, I had not seen that thread. Possibly there is hope yet...
I notice there is someone in Staffordshire who regularly advertises several Flair kits, at prices which seem to vary from time to time, but (understandably) typically have some considerable mark up from the prices I recall. Anyone know anything about this ? - the name is not the same as the person quoted as now owning Flair, so possibly old stock held over from an ex-model shop?
-
A question about ‘Flair’ models. When talking recently to a model shop owner, who had just sold the last of his old Flair related stock, he mentioned that the brand had a new owner, who he had recently been in contact with. The shop owner wasn’t aware if there was any intention to restart production, but hoped there might be.
Does anyone here have any information? I like the Flair Puppeteer which I have and would quite like to build more. Old kits do occasionally come up for sale I know. It would be nice to see these back in production!
-
Quite so, Martin_K.
The snag with this is that neither the folk at the top of the BBC nor the program makers, in general, are likely to be in any significant sense technically minded or technically competent. They are probably rather more 'arts' oriented, so opt for sensationalism and scare tactics since that 'sells'. Their concern is to maximise viewer numbers; they need have no concern about accuracy or the impact on others.
Sadly, in Britain today such technical stupidity & ignorance is not viewed as a negative. Many seem to view a lack of expertise as a good thing.
For the folk taking decisions at the BBC, the huge differences between the two types of 'drone' is likely beyond their comprehension and very probably is of no interest to them, sadly.
Edited By John Bisset on 24/09/2019 10:33:29
-
I think you were close Mike T, in assuming that an aviation attribution would suit this forum - apparently it is suggested in 'Reach for the Sky' that Harry Day, First World War pilot & ace was the person Bader supposedly quoted. Must check my copy!
-
My word that is a scary document, Steve - thanks for mentioning it. AI had not seen it before. A quick first scan suggests that much of the focus is on much more intrusive future operations than anything we represent, but...
I must read further about the proposed update of VFR general aviation aircraft by around 2027, (Just what we need, another expensive & pointless change just after the 8.33MHz spacing radio shambles & the expensive transponder fitments. Sigh.)
I liked your -
"I'm sure that the government would say that even if you always fly line of sight in the same place, you should still check for restrictions."
True-ish, just as we are always supposed to have checked the Notams before flying fullsize. That said, if flying circuits at known and registered airfields in some quieter parts of the country, that is often 'honoured in the breach', it being expected that any relevant flying activities would be known about, or would require co-ordination if affecting the circuit area.
In any event, I can't see the fliers at my local modelling site checking the database every day for local restrictions. Perhaps we need to suggest that our model flying sites get put on the database too, so that others can avoid us !
-
What, in the long run, do you think the CAA intend to use the geo-awareness database for? Is it their intention that drone operators will be able to access it ? - that might make sense for commercial drone operators but I can't seethe ordinary user doing so. To ask commercial users to pay for access to that database would be reasonable, and a charge the operators would simply pass on to clients. For ordinary drone users, that would need a change in law surely.
The database is of little or no relevance to the average radio control flier surely, since we are line of sight only. Struggling to see the justification for our paying for it!
-
Thanks Steve. Most intriguing - the slightly odd pattern of very precise and strangely arbitrary overlay information suggested several sources; one of the challenges nowadays, especially when dealing with some one else's bureaucracy or data retrieval is determining the provenance and likely accuracy of the data !
(Occasionally I have had to explain to people, especially non-technical managers, politicians and civil servants that data is not of itself valuable. until is developed into reliable information - from which we may be able to gain knowledge. There is a tendency to presume the data gathering is the really important bit & everything else peripheral.)
-
An interesting but quite strange map, thank you Stephen. The detail varied quite a lot across the map. Clearly they have used much more detailed information for towns & cities, though some villages up in our area get poorer coverage, understandably.
For those smaller villages, although the position of school grounds is mapped with yellow caution in random cases no ground detail is shown at the level of zoom required to get the caution areas to show up - rendering them both hilarious & pointless! Nevertheless, a very impressive level of detail overall - in some cases out in the open country, a thin yellow line turns out to indicate where the high voltage lines run - hopefully obvious to anyone on the ground, but nice to see.
I'm not at all sure about the red and yellow areas around airfields though. The civil airfield zones are straightforward, wherever they com down to ground level. In some cases the 'inner' red areas appear to show stubs where someone thinks runway approaches are. In several cases they are wrong, or way out of date, by decades. The military fields yellow and red zones don't match either ATZ or MATZ configurations and locations.
Small civil field and glider fields have small yellow zones shown, though some sites which are not in use are shown and curious;y one very rarely used heliport location has a large zone than the highly active light aircraft field zones nearby. Curious.
A mixture of very impressive detailed information and some oddly out of date assumptions, it seems. I wonder especially where the latter comes from! Do we know who promulgated that map?
-
And the Gatwick shambles shows how absurd the furore over drones is.
It is highly probable that many of the reported sightings and 'near-misses' listed by the Airprox Board are reports made in error. Some are clearly nonsense, given the heights and positions reported. Others simple mis-idents , probably of full size aircraft further away or of sundry aerial oddities and curiosities. After more than fifty years of flying, I have had occasional close encounters, but many more instances when surprise after momentary inattention or distraction made me think there was a conflict when there was not.
Also searching for downed aircraft showed me how hard is to spot other aircraft and how small they are - drones are smaller, so a good sighting & tracking is darned hard to get ! Yes, the risk exists, especially at low level for slow traffic and helicopters, but it is less than the public noise about it suggests. It will get worse - both the noise and the real risk. Meantime, well done the BMFA & all the objecters for getting some thinking about changes to the rather silly plans.
-
A couple of winters back my wife and I bought some very small radio control helicopters from (I think) Argos. Originally for the kids, we bought a couple, for ourselves since they flew impressively well around the house. Great for seeing where the the drafts were !
They were around £20 each. I see Argos have some similar micro helicopters on sale for £13 each just now. The snag we had was in finding several machines with different frequencies. Cheap fun.
-
That is a really beautiful model. What a shame that Warbird Replicas are closing down - or have closed?
I don't suppose anyone else will take on the jigs.drawings or whatever. Drat, another fine kit missed!
-
Posted by Foxfan on 07/09/2019 15:40:39:
Good grief! Really? How did I ever miss that?
Which company made it?
Martin
It's a homebuilt from Belgium, Martin. The Verhees D-Plane - I recall seeing it in a flying magazine a while back & plans were said to be available. Only one ever built, though apparently a two seater has been designed !
(Hmm- those comments about old Solarfilm worry me. I'd better test some of my old stock! And check where Balsaloc can be bought)
Edited By John Bisset on 10/09/2019 17:11:12
-
Gonzo, that is a very good point !
There is an anomaly there well worth the BMFA's time to explore, I'd say.
Latest CAA Update
in All Things Model Flying
Posted
To which the only sensible response is 'Not now - don't distract me while I deal safely with this'. No doubt that would not be what such an inquirer would want !