Martin_K

Posted by Bob Cotsford on 26/09/2019 10:07:49: First thing that came into my head was 'I wonder if it has retracts? ..... Don't know. It may be designed as a 'single mission' vehicle. Landing with a nose up attitude, tall undercarriage would be required to keep the pusher prop clear of the ground. On the other hand there appear to be a lot of inspection panels, as if for maintenance.

A couple more photos. Links to the full size images on arstechnica.net; Photo 1 Photo 2 Edited By Martin_K on 25/09/2019 17:00:52

Posted by John Bisset on 24/09/2019 20:34:34: I await the inevitable flak ! No flak from me for your attempt at differentiation of unmanned aircraft types. Ron just beat me to it to an extent. Having a law that depends on the mode of operation of a model airplane, it's autonomy or requirement for hands on piloting is problematic for policing. Especially if a model aircraft could morph between two states by the insertion or removal of a flight controller. Commercial drones may finish up looking very like model aircraft, to make forward flight more efficient and provide that inherent stability. The new legislation takes a different tack, rules for access to airspace regardless of the type of UAV.

Posted by John Bisset on 24/09/2019 12:33:37: 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). John, The technologies employed in the operation of model aircraft and semi-autonomous UAV's have merged. The same radios, RX's, and FPV kit can be used for all manner of fixed wing and multi-rotor applications, with only subtle differences in flight control. I understand that many model aircraft fliers do not employ on-board flight control - up to now I am one of them. I am currently thinking about buying a new radio with mixing and telemetry capabilities. My existing radio is very basic. As a newbie I was initially amazed by some of the flying I saw, until I realised it was down to how the computer radio was programmed, to give 'launch mode', spoilerons plus elevator mix, etc. I fancy some of that too. It seems only a small step from there to placing some of the processing power on-board the 'plane. In short, model aircraft are so diverse in form that I don't see how a simple, legally water-tight, definition can be written that improves on 'UAV'.

For a better look at the vast difference between a military (gasoline / kerosene fuel) and a hobby drone (electric) see this 1 minute video clip of the drone / missile debris from the recent attack on Saudi oil processing facilities. Not as sophisticated as US kit as they are probably limited in operational range by being controlled from ground stations.

Robert, I too would be interested to hear your experiences of operation, e.g. how you prepare drawings, allowances for thickness of material removed by the cutting process. An occasional update regarding successes and failures would be nice.

The opinion from the Defence Committee witness Arthur Holland Michel that seemed relevant to our debate was; "The discussion that you are seeing happen about larger drones is that if the industry can prove that large drones can be integrated into the airspace in a safe way, the airspace authorities will allow that to happen." My interpretation of that statement, trade top priority, defence? The other thing I took from the hearing; the 'expert witnesses' know no more than us about the effectiveness of counter drone technologies as nobody shares their results.

I took a guess that their web site would be hef.bmfa.org It is. I recently noticed that sites hosted as sub-domains on bmfa.org do not appear to be indexed on Google. The bad news is they say they now have no vacancies, but worth checking if that is current information.

Posted by Andy Goddard 2 on 17/09/2019 08:59:29: Ideally I’d love to understand why this spec is ideal for this particular model. I assume one starts with the weight and prop size to work out the thrust required. From that gives the spec for motor and then the spec for esc and batteries. Is anybody able to help me understanding the calculations one does to work these things out? The Basic Guide linked to above appeared while I was typing. Hopefully my shorter version is consistent. I hit this problem recently when moving from building gliders to a powered plane. There is no one source I can recommend but the rough process to predict the charactersitics of your plane and it's required power train is; Work out the wing area and the expected total weight of the plane. Divide weight by area to give the wing loading. If you are British or American this will be measured in ounces per square foot, the continentals use metric units. From wing loading there are formulas to approximate stall speed, i.e. the slowest speed at which you are still flying. There are then 'rules of thumb' for the multiple of weight to use for various styles of flying. Watts per pound for 'sport' rather than 'aerobatic', for example. Having established how much power you need from the motor in watts you then need to know how much current the motor will draw when delivering that power, using a specific size of propeller. At this point I decided if a motor manufacturer did not supply test data for power (W), Current (I), Voltage (V), rpm, prop size, I simply was not going to use their product. After all that the only way to know what is actually going on (i.e. whether your ESC is suitable) is to use test gear, something to measure current, voltage, and hence power, e.g. a power meter. This is easy static on the ground, I haven't tried it in the air. While researching I noticed that over time how much power is recommended has gone up and up. Apparently modellers now have much higher expectations of performance than in the past. There are various on-line calculators that can give you a feel for how all this relates. Sadly, the one I like, WebOcalc, is no longer maintained but is available on the Internet Archive.   Edited By Martin_K on 17/09/2019 11:09:34

To interpret this map you do need to understand the different classifications employed, especially where they overlap. This works where the map maker has used existing terms which have known meanings, e.g. ATZ Aerodrome Traffic Zone, FRZ Flight Restriction Zone. It seems mis-leading to me with "Areas of increased risk". Is there any such aeronautical term? For example, a field I fly in has London Heli-Route H3 overhead, clicking the yellow highlight gives; There is an increased risk of encountering aerial vehicles at this location You will definitely see helicopters but there is no increased risk to flight as the manned helicopters are at much higher altitude. If vertical separation is 'risky' the whole basis of air traffic control is flawed.

Thanks for the suggestions. I think I picked a bad region to look at. Heathrow is within a much larger red tinted area so you are looking at a redish bit within a red zone! Some of the explanations seen when clicked are weird, they talk of 'increased risk' rather than fly or no fly. I will have to study it when I have more time.

Posted by Steve J on 16/09/2019 10:37:37: ..... There is a free online map (and app) in the UK..... Steve Re. the Drone Safety Map. Having looked at the area with which I am familiar, i.e. around Heathrow, I was about to post saying that the map was wrong! FRZ too small. I then noticed what is to my sight a very faint redish circle plus runway extensions, extending beyond the obvious (to me) orange circle. Two questions for other forum members; Can others clearly see the red highlighted areas? (Yes, I do have defective colour vision). Can anyone find a key on the map to explain what the different colour codes mean?

After all the discussion about enlarged airport FRZ's and changes to the ANO it is interesting that the authorities have used powers related to anti social behaviour, declaring a "Dispersal Zone" around Heathrow, which is geographically different to the FRZ.

There is no date on this CAA Drone and model aircraft registration and education service page but I don't recall seeing it before so it could be new. It is a summary of much that we have discussed.

A few weeks ago I went out with my brother so that he could have a go with my most robust Rudder/Elevator glider. He is quite a lot older than me. His last flying was many decades ago, free flight and home made one channel RC. He described the escapement mechanism. I didn't expect to be seeing a demo now! He also said he thought he still had the 'crystal' at home. I just nodded, having vague awareness of what existed before transistor radio.

Re. Baronees Vere above. Again, I am not supporting the Baroness, but the broader picture is about access to airspace. Not what type of UAV is entering that airspace.   Edited By Martin_K on 04/09/2019 11:26:01

Posted by Erfolg on 04/09/2019 11:03:47: We need to remind ourselves, that we see our model aircraft as being different to drones, yet the legislation and regulations do not seem to make any distinction or recognise this aspect. On this basis we could be lulled into false optimism to think we would be excluded from changes to future requirements in this area, such as carrying transponders etc. Many here are fixated on making a distinction between 'model aircraft' and 'drones'. A foam park flyer with stabilisation, auto-levelling, holding pattern, return to home, looks very much like a 'drone' to me. Government does have a genuine problem writing legislation in this area. (I have never had a multi-rotor only fixed wing. All my RX's are receive only, no flight control).

Posted by Cuban8 on 04/09/2019 11:03:42: Posted by Cuban8 on 04/09/2019 10:18:14: Can anyone give me an answer to this....... What good in terms of aviation safety, compared to now, will be forthcoming by having 35000 BMFA members registered in the new scheme? Anything? Anyone? Happy to be educated.................... I am not supporting the registration scheme, just attempting to answer your question. To join the BMFA you pay the membership fee. Once a member you become exposed to material promoting good practices but membership alone does not require any knowledge of 'drone' laws. I joined the BMFA before joining a club. I started flying before joining the BMFA. Yes, not the ideal way of doing things but my starting point was buying a kit to make a balsa glider. Thinking about where to fly, insurance, etc. came later. To change this the government advertising scheme needs to be massive. I doubt it will be.

Posted by Steve J on 02/09/2019 14:18:00: .... As I understand it, both Gatwick and Heathrow currently have counter-UAS systems in place and have had all year to sort out their procedures..... I have witnessed one occassion and had a report from a club member of a second time when the police attended the park where our flying site lies, within the Heathrow FRZ. I inferred from what was said that the authorities have some sort of 2.4GHz network sniffer. Whether they can only decode traffic from specific brands I don't know. I imagine other tools are at their disposal too. They certainly have moved beyond visual sighting to 'detecting' the presence of a 'drone'. This should give position and even make/model data where drones are being flown manually using RC. Catching people is another matter. Expanding the FRZ means there is now a very large area to be policed. Then there are drones flying autonomously. No RC signal to detect. Radar? I would love to try out the detection toolkit! To be convinced about any future drone incidents at Heathrow/Gatwick I am expecting details, not just vague reports.

It looks like the protesters are using the airport's own previous behaviour as a weapon, i.e. see drone, close airport. The protester line seems to be, we are going to show you drones (in the plural, inside the FRZ but not directly over the airfield), go on then, deploy your forces and shut the airport. I can't predict what this means for those of us permitted to fly (fixed wing) inside the FRZ, but it certainly doesn't help.

Posted by Keith Sharples on 01/09/2019 13:50:46: ...Now that is where the difference lies each club/event etc has it's own set of rules and permission to fly requirements, so to fly you have to conform to what ever it is.... Your comment made me think Keith, no argument with you, just want to point out how bewildering this can become if you live somewhere with multiple neighbouring London boroughs. My club site is in the London Borough of Hillingdon. Hillingdon prohibit multi-rotor flying from all council land. This started off as a simple blanket ban but has become more nuanced over time, to accomodate the circumstances under which the council do want 'drones'. The policy now runs to 14 pages. Not something that is pinned to the park notice board! The other two places I fly are in different boroughs where hobby quad-copter use is possible, with restrictions. The mix of UK national, local authority, land owner, BMFA, club rules, etc is horrible. But ..... it's a case of be careful what you ask for. A simple 'clarification' from government could have consequences much worse than an unwelcome registration scheme.

Even if the airport is Heathrow (my case), I'm not sure why there should be any costs when applying to fly inside an FRZ. You can do it on-line via the Airspace User Portal. I understand the process followed by the chairman of my club was to make a Non Standard Flight Application. Electronic documentation came back, an Approval Request Summary (valid for 1 year), and letter. NATS can still rescind the approval however. If you are asking for permission to continue doing the same thing, in the same place, and already known to local ATC, that must be a strong starting point. If your interest is starting a new activity, then I have no experience.

The one thing we modellers could do is present a unified front, which would make it easier for organisations like the BMFA to represent our views. This thread suggests that will be difficult. I felt the need to join the forum to argue against taking the militant line advocated by many here. That would risk negative PR. My own self interest at play, yes, as I meet the public every time I fly. My impression is the public thinks government policy is to limit drone use, when it is actually to increase drone use by organising low level air space for the benefit of commercial operators. How you get international standards for air traffic management into the public consciousness, prior to drones appearing overhead, I have no idea.

Posted by Steve J on 29/08/2019 19:16:01: I would suggest practicing the SF(E) 'A' and then getting in touch with the area achievement scheme co-ordinator to get it done...... Steve Steve, that is a helpful suggestion. Thanks. It would get me back to thinking about the sort of flying that inspired me to take up aero modelling, rather than a half-hearted attempt to embrace power, runways, and stunts.

Posted by john stones 1 on 29/08/2019 12:47:52: Not sure why achievement scheme is being discussed, no clubs ever put barriers in my way, some have rules you need to abide by, the choice is yours, ours you need to demonstrate you're safe to be let loose, pretty similar to the A test, barrier ? nope just sensible precaution to protect the site and its membership, not much to ask after the years of work people have put into their clubs, your barriers learning to fly, have fun. Demonstrating basic competence to a club, face to face on site, is not the barrier. Being told you cannot fly without the 'A' is the barrier. I will not say where, I still hope to get in one day. I am having fun.