Martin Harris - Moderator

Tom said:"This debate is really about risk assessment ,problems only arise when irresponsible individuals are let loose ." The problem, as perceived by an average council, will be those irresponsible individuals being given carte blanche. It's an extreme example, but 2 such people thought they could build a Wot4 and fly it with little or no experience. The badly constructed model failed in flight and tragically killed a young girl going about her lawful business on public land. The local club, (as far as I'm aware) who these gentlemen didn't have anything to do with and who'd operated safely for many years, lost their use of the land as a result   I am aware that Peter has dismissed this case as irrelevent and if we're truly talking about lightweight low energy models then he may be correct.  However, the helicopters that he's pictured with look to me as if they could do significant damage to persons, animals or property which worries me more than a little. If these models are being flown between 200 - 300 feet, they must be pretty large and of course, it's not eay to get to 200 feet or land again without passing head height. I have only seen helicopters operating within a club environment but even 60 sized ones rarely seem to stay above 30 feet long except for brief excursions to the top of manouevres. Edited By Martin Harris on 11/07/2011 15:38:19

Peter's last post seems to infer that clubs are businesses trying to protect their own interests by any means . Unless I've led a very sheltered existence, nothing could be further from the truth. All the clubs I have any knowledge of are simply groups of generally like-minded individuals who realise the benefits and practicalities of organising flying activities with the aim of enjoying their hobby as safely and securely as possible, whether on their own, rented or public sites.   Any opposition to what they might see as reckless or selfish behaviour (and please don't infer anything from this statement about your flying activities Peter as I have absolutely no knowledge of your situation) would be based on the general interests of the hobby. The more participants (operating safely and considerately) the better, as far as I'm concerned and I'm sure this goes for the majority of clubs and individuals.Edited By Martin Harris on 10/07/2011 23:08:51

Reading the guidance notes I think you're probably right but I suspect this was formulated before the 1 kg minimum limit for the Power A.   It might be arguable that a model that is not regarded as an Electric Powered Sports model by the scheme as it's not eligible for the Power A could then be regarded as suitable for the test if it can be flown through the manouevres in an appropriate manner.   Perhaps something to be raised with the scheme co-ordinator?Edited By Martin Harris on 10/07/2011 01:09:09

As is usually the case, I find myself in agreement with BEB - I too, had some reservations about Peter's approach and BEB has encapsulated them most elegantly.   The lone flier is always at a disadvantage - for example, it's normal practice at our club for anyone noticing a walker or horse rider in the vicinity to call out the fact to the flightline. In a park, it would be very difficult to maintain total awareness of people or animals heading for a dangerous situation from behind the pilot.   A well run club operating in a clearly defined area of a public park is a very different thing but Peter's opposition to clubs in general as being more dangerous than his ideal of a lone flyer astounds me. Yes, there's a possibility of collision but to say you're forever dodging other models either means he's visited very poorly run clubs or has no real understanding of the role circuit discipline and communication between pilots works...or perhaps he visited a 1/12 scale combat meeting!!! Not only do most clubs have rules to regulate flying to minimise undue hazards, but a wealth of experience is passed on to new pilots, bringing awareness of hazards that may not be appreciated by the lone or self-taught pilot.

Most clubs base their level of competence to fly any model up to 7 kg without supervision on the possession of an A certificate and the minimum weight limit was brought in very recently to address concerns that people were passing the test without neccessarily having any experience on models more representative of average "club" models. So I doubt that the BMFA would consider the weight limit outdated!   I believe that the Silent Flight (Electric) A test can be taken with a lightweight model and would be more appropriate to this type of model. I would like to think that a club would then allow the holder to fly their small model unsupervised and then take a standard A test when they are ready to move up.Edited By Martin Harris on 09/07/2011 23:09:12

As a founder member of the Bodgers Society of Great Britain, I don't have any reservations about using a tapered reamer (or whatever you'd like to call it) for this task. The function of the hole is to locate the prop centre accurately and if it's balanced reasonably there should be no lateral loads on the hole (which is clamped by the prop driver/nut assembly anyway) so the fact that it's only touching at a single point shouldn't be significant.   I feel that it is certainly a better method than drilling as a more precise fit should be possible by repeated removal and trial fit - drills give an approximation depending on how well they've been ground which is the whole reason for the existence of proper parallel reamers.   As Bob mentioned earlier, balancing after opening the hole up is the way to go - if you do use the tapered version always work from the front so that the part that locates the prop registers on the shaft and not the thread and take care to hold the tool as square as possible to reduce any possible offset.Edited By Martin Harris on 09/07/2011 10:58:36

I understand that France only allows part of the 2.4 GHz band to be used. Some manufacturers have a setting which limits the bandwidth to the French specification so I don't see why those couldn't be used legally.

Peter,   I only mentioned it as an example of an actual incident. It happened several years ago and I'm not sure whether the car owner (who has retired to warmer climes) ever bothered claiming although there was talk at the time. Actually, the dodgiest thing would be admission of fault between friends/club colleagues which would be the natural reaction but contrary to the conditions of insurance.   As to the fencing, it surrounds the pits as well as the car park so perhaps that would put your mind at rest. It was a PPM reciever so failsafe wasn't an option in that case. It was only when the pilot observed the throttle surging as he carried a fun fly to the flight line with the transmitter resting on top of it that I spotted the crystal problem for him. We do try to encourage assistance in carrying models out but he was used to flying at quiet times with little or no assistance available.   No other examples I'm glad to say but this and one or two close misses encouraged us to uprate the fencing a couple of years ago. I suppose this is an example of how clubs can help to reduce the incidence of claims by investing in protective measures.    

Posted by Tom Sharp 2 on 08/07/2011 18:23:27: The government has arranged for all this wind in order to make it look as if all our tax money is being usefully employed in building all theses white elephant wind turbines.         I wonder when the public will realise that the things attached to the blades are effectively big electric motors connected by big fat cables to the National Grid. It's funny how the wind increases when they're whirling round... Edited By Martin Harris on 08/07/2011 19:04:06

A claim in either case - pilot error or equipment failure - the car owner claims from the pilot as it was either a flying error or failure of equipment under his control. The pilot hands the case to the BMFA whose insurers take on the matter and after establishing the facts, pay out to the claimant.

Peter, I witnessed one such accident from uncomfortably close to it happening. I was by the rear of the car that was hit by an OS46 LA powered model. The car belonged to the instructor who had taught the pilot but I think it was entirely co-incidental! The damage to the car's bonnet was quite impressive.  Our site's car park is very close to the flying area due to geographical limitations but we have a safety fence (raised since this incident occurred) but a few weeks later the cause of the lack of control (accepted at the time by the pilot as incompetence) was almost undoubtedly traced to an intermittent crystal connection on the transmitter.

Andy, Funnily enough I read an article in the paper last week that said that average wind speeds have been dropping over the last couple of years. I must say that I found it very hard to believe, based on my own experience.

Round trip! Pah! He's a local... One of ours used to commute to our club in Hertfordshire from Telford (123 miles each way) at least twice a week...tried a couple of local clubs after he moved but couldn't tear himself away. He did move back eventually. His firm pays for his fuel for private use though.

If he pronounces his name Biggles Elder Brother then he should be - but not if it's Bigglesis.   P.S. At the risk of exposing myself to grammatical/punctuational (if that's a word?) inspection, shouldn't there be a full stop after etc?Edited By Martin Harris on 08/07/2011 00:48:23

Click on the link, Gary. They even suggest it's possible to fly in if you're transponder equipped!

If you use streetview you can find the notice at the entrance which says Gatwick Aviation Museum - it's visitors by appointment and gives phone numbers...   I've never heard of it before but they seem to have some interesting stuff there - I don't know what sort of condition they can maintain the collection in outside but it looks well worth investigating...

At our club, it's noticeable that attendance is down this year.   It's possible, I suppose, that the committee have driven everyone away with unreasonable demands, unfriendly attitudes and unfair rules but I sincerely (as current chairman) hope this isn't the case and as far as I'm aware, those who turn up are always met with a warm welcome.   First off, is this a trend or are we unlucky? (some might think we're lucky never having to queue for a slot!)   If so, what's the cause? Is it the state of the economy, a reflection on the almost constant high winds we seem to have had for the last couple of years or maybe ARTFs making the sport too easy to participate in without the level of long term commitment that builders seem to develop? Perhaps all of these to some degree?   What I have noticed is that those who turn up week in week out are, in the main, "traditional" modellers who build (although most of us also fly ARTFs as well).   We organised a friendly competition for last Saturday lunchtime in an attempt to bolster enthusiasm and we did see a small increase in numbers over recent weeks - but this was the best Saturday in ages and in years gone by we'd have expected to have to fight for a place in the car park - let alone the flight line!

It does seem a bit OTT - certainly if you're looking for reasonable scale performance. I wonder whether the tail has been built heavy to counteract the engine weight or if the battery is designed to go quite far back? If the latter is the case then I would imagine that with the 120 you should end up with a lighter overall package which probably is no bad thing.   My Airsail Chipmunk:     (quite a bit smaller at 1/6 scale - 69" span but not particularly light at 8 1/2 pounds with on-board glow etc.) is adequately powered by an OS 52 - although many people overpower these models with 70s and even 90s. I use not much more than 1/3 throttle for take-off to avoid it getting off in a couple of lengths, which looks most un-scale like. The designer told me that the prototype flew on a "well used OS40FS" and I can easily believe him.Edited By Martin Harris on 07/07/2011 12:05:16

Are you flying a high wing trainer by any chance? Although it doesn't feel like it when you're learning, the average trainer is just dying to get back on an even keel and the effective anhedral will have you right side up in a jiffy...

I did wonder about the possibility on this thread...

This sort of thing - a part of a presentation from Perkins Slade - is confusing to me:   • Duty of care responsibility of Model Flyers – Breach of duty • Settles negligent acts • Up to a limit of indemnity of £10 million   – No breach of duty • Will deny liability where Insurers consider there is no negligence • Risk management considerations • Contributory negligence • “Accidental” loss   ...which suggests that we are covered for a neglgent act - but then suggests that contributory negligence would invalidate the cover!  

Full sized FRP glider repairs are done by making a mould of the damaged area (often from a similar example) and laying up a repair section using the same types and orientation of cloths as the original as cracking tends to propogate over a widish area. Delamination, which can be seen by shining a strong light through the structure, often occurs aver a relatively large area.   After cutting out the damaged area, the repair section is laid in place and the adjoining areas are scarfed at a pre-determined angle which I can't recall but is probably in the order of 12:1 - e.g. if the area is 5mm thick, each side would be bevelled to a distance of 60mm. Glass cloth of the appropriate type is then laid up to the same thickness and sanded back to shape as the edges will be higher than required although careful cutting of progressively smaller pieces minimises this.   In your case, if the crack is structural you could modify this procedure after stop drilling (perhaps countersinking a little) by carefully forming a wide V, say 15mm wide, perhaps by scraping with a scalpel blade, and lay up several layers of the thinnest glass cloth you can obtain across it. Rub the cured repair down to the correct contours and repaint and that should be as good as the original.   What you'll notice is that on the full size, all the work is usually done from the outside and the repair shouldn't add any significant weight as theresulting laminate is the same thicknessas the original structure - unlike the usual practice in car repair of laying up from both sides and reinforcing it behind.Edited By Martin Harris on 06/07/2011 14:42:16 Edited By Tim Mackey - Administrator on 06/07/2011 15:56:31

From what I've heard from the BMFA and the insurer's representative at a Chairman's Conference, I don't believe (but have no firm evidence) that the BMFA insurance carries any specific exclusions other than the fact that you cannot insure against an illegal act.- unlike motor insurance where they take pains to point out your duty to ensure the vehicle is is roadworthy condition. Even then, my understanding is that any reduction or refusal to pay out would be based on the fault actually contributing to the accident e.g. a faulty headlight wouldn't affect a shunt from the rear.

As I read through various threads, a recurring theme is "if you do that it will invalidate your insurance."   My (totally non-professional and uninformed) interpretation of various statements and published advice from the BMFA and its insurers is that the insurance cover that we (as BMFA members) enjoy is simply cover against a claim made against us in the event that our actions cause harm or damage to a 3rd party or their property.   In fact, it only covers us if we do something silly or our equipment fails in some way that we could possibly have avoided. If a massive solar flare suddenly blanked out our radio link and the model crashed into a Ferrari Testarossa parked nearby, it would be counted as an Act of God and the BMFA insurers would not be interested. If your battery pack had been dug out of an old model, not been charged for 3 years and the model crashed into the supercar because of its failure then you would be quite entitled to make a claim.   "But it was YOUR SILLY FAULT," I can hear you saying. Well yes, and if we were in the habit of doing such stupid things the insurer would soon get tired of paying out claims and either increase the premiums or withdraw its services so it's in all our interests to take as much care to prevent incidents as possible and by and large, clubs and individuals try very hard to do so.   So why do I keep reading that if my gear doesn't have a CE mark I'm on my own or that if I ignore a recommendation in the handbook I have invalidated my cover?   The ONLY exception to the blanket cover provided against 3rd party claims for my negligence that I'm aware of is that the cover excludes an illegal act - of which aiming my model at someone because I'd taken a dislike to them would be an example. What I'm not sure about is whether an inadvertent transgression of the Law would automatically invalidate a claim or whether the insurer would look at each case on its merits and only back out if that transgression were the main cause of the claim.   How do others (particularly anyone with professional involvement in insurance matters) interpret the situation?Edited By Martin Harris on 06/07/2011 10:17:30

Not with the traffic on this little island!   It does remind me of a few magic moments on the way back from the field one evening at twilight, where an owl flew in very much the same manner in front of my car and alongside it at the edge of a field for about 1/4 of a mile.