paul devereux

Sorry to be a pain, (as you have been pleasant to me) but what do you mean 'our record'? And what do you mean by 'our methods we have in place promoting safe flying'? I'm thinking of the likes of John Woodfield, who posts weekly YouTube videos of slope soaring at Polperro. Beautiful videos that exemplify the fun of flying, but in a public place where people may turn up walking a dog or riding. Is our record just "we have been safe so far"? And our "methods": would be that we can persuade a jury (or a coroner) that we did in fact check linkages etc? I know you are not a lawyer, but you are an experienced modeller so I'm interested in your opinion.

I'm of course insured (via BMFA) and registered with the CAA ( I paid an annual fee but the registration itself lasts for 5 years, I'm pretty sure). The thing I was not clear about is competency. How does the BMFA insurance company judge 'competence' if not via a basic test? (It's just a question I have wondered about, I'm not inviting a pile-on to tell me I'm Public Enemy No 1).

I managed a circle inverted this morning! Not entirely complete, I bottled out and rolled out of it before completing the circle, but I rolled to inverted coming from my left, kept a steady height, flew four left hand turns, and rolled upright as I was flying down the original direction. I read somewhere yesterday that it is quite good to slow your speed down, it gives you more thinking time to concentrate on the elevator. It seems really strange that the ailerons act in the same way inverted, everything else is backwards. I think the Wot4 Foam-E is a superb trainer, it is so light, and so responsive, I find if I get in trouble, I just need to get it upright and give it some throttle, and It is flying fine. I'm now a bit worried that it is too easy to fly, and I would find a traditionally built plane, which is a heavier, more of a handful. But hey ho, my plan is to learn the basics and then join a club. One thing I'm not sure of, is that if I haven't passed a formal exam like the BMFA Part A or B I might not be fully covered by their insurance so I might be better off flying on my own land for the time being.

I know, I will. As I've said above, my concern is that an overly negative attitude will lead to the end of the hobby.

I fly off of 1.79 acres (it was on the deeds) surrounded by a 4 foot fence. It is tight but doable, as a Wot 4 foam-e turns on a sixpence. Of course when you have got some height you can stretch your flight a bit. The fences mean I have had to practise with landing, I clipped a fence once and tore off the u/c so I am always prepared to go around. I aim to touch down a few metres in front of me. I'm only practising in my field until I get good enough to join a club. My medium-term aim is to build and fly a WW1 warbird, maybe the Airco pusher or a BH2, about 4 or 5 foot span. To my mind, the WW1 aircraft are perfect, a bridge between pioneer flight and modern flight, and they look so good!

I've posted the plans, no charge like I said, just glad they are going to a good home!

I agree 100%, of course I'm not anti-safety.I may have posted because I was feeling a bit angry at the response I was getting- a lot of people fly in public places (slope soarers for example) and I would hate for them to have their harmless hobby curtailed by the people who say we should only fly on a club field. A slope soarer wouldn't work there, and it would also be pointless driving 30mins to have few minutes flying a little Champ if you have some open land next to your house.

You're right, I'll let it go! This is my very last word. I originally got my back up because I said we can legally fly HZ Champs (weight 105gms) in rec areas if the by-laws allow it. And we can- the CAA use the word "toy" to describe them, and my local authority expressly says you can fly them- subject to certain conditions. But I was attacked by several posters saying I was wrong. I'm not. Now, I wouldn't recommend someone learning to fly one in a rec, not just because that would contravene the local regs, but because it wouldn't be safe. But if someone can fly and wanted to practise, (I was responding to @toto) there is nothing wrong with it. You would just have to exercise the normal safety precautions people use with toy buggies, toy drones, exercising dogs, flying kites , playing ball games or whatever. One of our recs is known for flying activities (400mm war birds mostly) and the public, if they have anything to say, approve and say positive things. Now some members here may disapprove, that's fine, they wouldn't do it themselves. What I objected to was the general outcry about danger etc- which is why I say we are our own worst enemy when it comes to PR. I expect several people reading this are feeling incensed with anger at the idea of someone enjoying safely flying a small plane in a park- well, my advice would be to keep it to themselves- such opinions do nothing for the hobby in the general public's view. Just as well I didn't mention I'm visually impaired.

We, as people who actually like model flying, should go out of our way to stress it is fun, not dangerous. I honesty felt when I first read the article in the Mail that someone here had dobbed me in - it fitted my profile so perfectly- same age, own land, near to my house- why we do we keep banging on about how awful model flying is? Our local rec is dedicated to cricket now its summer-no one keeps on about how dangerous cricket balls to the noggin are. Oh well, I'm a newbie, what do I know, if you want to shoot yourselves down, get on with it.

You'll get there. It is just such joy when you move from just avoiding crashing, to putting the plane in the sky where you want it. This time last year, I was pleased to just get back on the ground in one piece. Now, with a lot of practise, I can choose what manoeuvre I want to fly (more or less!). And to line up for landing. It really is great fun.But IMO, it is just practice, practise, practise- left and right hand circuits, figure of eights- boring, but you are teaching your brain and digits to keep the plane in the sky and doing what you want with it. There are people on this forum who just want to stress how dangerous and boring model flying is, but you might want to look at this:RCGroups.com: The ABCs of Radio Control - Aircraft, Boats, and Cars!

But what if the complaint is that model flying is inherently dangerous? Imagine if someone says, for example, a chuck glider, normally harmless, becomes deadly when flown by a RC modeller? And they have the facts to prove this? Shouldn't all model flying be banned?

Without paywall:How community protection notices are ‘ruining people’s lives’ (archive.ph) It affects me, I enjoy learning to fly, I know people are worried about safety etc, but I did think that we would be able to continue with the hobby! Oh well, we can always use computer sims I suppose!

The Telegraph article is behind a paywall, I suppose it is the same article as the Mail? So am I right in thinking you believe that the CPN was reasonable and model flying should possibly cease? I kind of agree with you as there are safety issues with all models, but shouldn't people be allowed to fly on their own land? I get it that there are people that fly slope soarers off public land (for example there is someone who has regular YouTube videos flying from Polperro )which I guess you think should be banned, but don't you agree that there should be some places at least where model flying should be allowed? Like your own land?

I read this this morning and thought someone had dobbed me in as it fitted me to a 'T' : 68 years old- flying on his own land- two acres- next to his house- CAA compliant. It was only when I saw the name that I realised it wasn't me. It just goes to show, if we keep banging on about how dangerous our hobby is, we will get banned, and we will have done it to ourselves. That's why I got so cross a couple of days ago. We all do a range check, fail-safe, throttle stop, look out for danger, etc because it is common sense, not because it is in a rule book. The general public don't care about these things, they just go on what they hear. And if they hear it from us, it has even more weight. Malcolm Edwards, 68, was banned from flying his model aeroplane in the two-acre field behind his Kidderminster home, despite complying with all the laws set out by the Civil Aviation Authority. Mr Edwards told The Telegraph that he believes he was given the order by a 'vindictive' police officer who took a local complaint on face value. The 68-year-old model plane enthusiast, who has been diagnosed with cancer, which he belives to be related to the stress of the ordeal, added: 'You feel violated when you know you have done nothing wrong and helpless knowing everything you are doing to rectify the situation falls on deaf ears,' he said. Campaigners call for community protection notices to be scrapped | Daily Mail Online

You won't find yourself back at square one. I know that from experience as a learner myself, also there have been studies showing there are plateaus to muscle memory skills (they were done on touch-typing, but we need muscle memory to fly) that show a lay-off is more beneficial than constant training.

Hi Rich! Ha ha, flying is still fun, whatever the doom and gloom merchants say! Yes, a brush with a fence has taught me to land at my feet more or less!

Got my practise flights in early today, got family stuff later. My little patch isn't sophisticated, but it is quiet and just a few minutes walk from home. Hope everyone enjoys flying today- and above all, fly safely!

Well then, some posters have replied with differing views- and I presume they have all read the BMFA guidelines. How do you explain that? And to save you trouble, it is a rhetorical question.

A good point which we all agree on, but irrelevant. So why make it? I was talking about the irony of the BMFA insuring against the damage planes can cause, and it turned out their biggest problem was a chuck glider. Not a RC plane, not a CL plane, not a free flight plane, but a toy.

First, it is not me who keep derailing this thread, it is people like you. If you look back, heck if you just look at the thread title, you'll see I was just asking for opinions in flying in showers- and I've had some interesting and thoughtful responses on topic. Second, surely you must agree the irony of the BMFA insurers making their biggest-ever payout over a chuck glider (we don't know the circumstances, may have been flown by a child in a park, may have been flown at a club,though it is difficult to see precisely how that can have led to calamity) when their purpose is to insure RC planes, is worthy of discovery? Thirdly, I am astonished by the high-handed attitude of some posters- someone called Rich warning me of the dangers of spooking horses (I have been around horses all my life, I ride and keep horses) and also advising me to ask questions on a forum! Presumably he does not mean this forum.

Yes, and who took it off topic? I'm looking at you, Ron!😁

I was born and bred in Wales, you don't have to tell me about the weather! Except the summer of 1976 was good!

My goodness. I'm sometimes lost for words. Just who do some of you people think you are?

Thanks. The story smells like urban legend to me (who on earth would insure a chuck glider with the BMFA, let alone cause "the biggest payout the BMFA ever made" with it?). I'll email Andy- if it's true, it'll be the scoop of the century in the aeromodelling world! I'll post the results here and on another forum I'm on.

Thank you,Martin, for posting a response that is pertinent and helpful (unlike the likes of @Jon - Laser Engines with his remark:"People in glass houses" in relation to me asking if the person in that example was considered a competent flyer or not. Of course it is a reasonable question in relation to accidents.) I just wondered if most people continued with a flight if it started to rain when it was showery or terminated it straight away. I think people should accept beginners will have what they may consider to be 'daft' questions and be curious about the hobby. If people have an opinion they can give it or not, or just ignore the thread. They don't have to mock the person asking it. Do you have a link or any details on the incident with the chuck glider so I can look it up? I always think accidents have a learning potential: in my field of work,before undertaking a task we would always: Risk assess, identifying any potential hazards incl. check for any relevant history; Assess the risk,incl. identifying mitigating factors; Complete the task and review.