Dave Rose

I,m concerned somewhat with our goalie. Farting around at the back. Seems overconfident to me. The forwards need to shoot more too. Harry and Jesse are somewhat reticent. Go for it. Shoot on sight. And good luck!

Posted by PatMc on 28/06/2018 21:22:22: They have more yellow cards. But what a system! Each of the teams would probably like to lose to get the better group next. You'd think FIFA could come up with a better system. To avoid this farce scenarios,It's quite easy. All you do is let the groupnwinner choose which team and group they wish to go on to play. That way everyone will try to win every match played Edited By Dave Rose on 28/06/2018 20:06:58 So what if Belgium, as group G winners, choose to play Columbia but Columbia, as group H winners choose to play England ? ------------------ ------------------------- I hear what you are saying, - in that case, then , let the better record between Belgium and Columbia ( goal diff, yellow cards, or if necessary, draw lots) determine which team chooses. Even if it goes to the awful drawing of lots, it still means that teams will try to win each match they play?

              Posted by PatMc on 28/06/2018 13:23:50: Posted by Devcon1 on 28/06/2018 12:58:42: Tonight will be a curious game... Will they, won't they (Belgium) play to lose. I think we are too proud a nation to go down that road....   IMO tonight's game will be a training session for both sides. I don't think either team will want to risk injury problems. For instance Vardy to come on for Kane at an early point or even start amongst other substitutions/changes would make sense. Might be quite a boring match, BEB will probably have an early nap.   --------                                                          ---------------------- Well, it's half time and if things stay as they are Belgium will have the easier , I suppose, group. They have more yellow cards. But what a system! Each of the teams would probably like to lose to get the better group next. You'd think FIFA could come up with a better system. To avoid this farce scenarios,It's quite easy. All you do is let the groupnwinner choose which team and group they wish to go on to play. That way everyone will try to win every match played     Edited By Dave Rose on 28/06/2018 20:06:58

ExactlyPosted by John Muir on 17/06/2018 18:04:57: For what it's worth, here's how I see it: I don't think the CAA is interested in how well we can fly, I think they want to be sure we know the rules as they apply to us. For BMFA/SAA members that means reading, digesting and, above all, following the guidelines as set out in our handbooks. These organizations may, I suggest, need to come up with an on-line test for us all to take which will prove that we have read and understood these guidelines, as simply being a member may not be enough to satisfy the CAA. Having completed the theory part of the A test (or equivalent) might be accepted as a substitute, the flying part of the test I'd expect to be irrelevant and getting everyone, including country members, through it, would be completely impractical anyway. For non members similar logic would apply but a CAA set online test would be taken which would reflect the rules that apply to them, including the 400ft limit and so on. How the casual drone purchaser is informed and persuaded of the need to do this will be somebody else's problem. Whichever group we're in, the essential purpose of the test will be to show we know the rules and doing an on-line test ensures, at least as much as is practical, that we have read enough of them to fill out the test form. It does look like if we want to continue to fly legally, we're going to have to provide some kind of proof that we understand our legal obligations, and that means some sort of test, but I don't see the A test becoming mandatory any time soon, or ever, come to that. I'd just like to add my thanks to our representative bodies for the excellent work done so far, John. Exactly right. Well said

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 17/06/2018 16:53:54: I'm not talking down to you, So there is not much point in discussing it with you. BEB LOL.- unbelievable! Let's leave it at that then

BEB... Please keep your answers to the arguments and do not attempt to talk down to those who give opinions you may not agree with. 😉 First, you are the one who introduced the requirement of an A certificate into this thread. Of course you do not impose it , but you advocated its imposition. Secondly, see SteveJ,s reply top of page 21, where he quotes the "explanatory memorandum" saying about the CAA wanting an online test of the sua laws. I see nowhere( in the BMFA informations or the explanatory memorandum) that an A certificate is being considered or required. That idea seems to be your brainchild. As someone else has mentioned there may be problems in implementing an online test satisfactorily.,Nevertheless, if it can be achieved, and thus BMFA membership and passing of the test satisfies the CAA and the law, why press for more , especially a test that many will avoid and yet will probably go on flying ( illegally)

A number of posts seem to suggest that model flying is all about belonging to a club that has a flying venue and the models are all powered sport or scale models! IOW, the ideal set up for A certificates, B certificates, etc. I fly at such a club. I also fly gliders on slopes and occasional thermal gliding The chaps I know on the slopes mainly do not fly power, and are not power club members, and a fair number do not belong to any club.Most have never flown a power model. So, imagine you tell them about this thread and the point at which we are now, - the taking of the A certificate is being discussed as being required for them to able to continue flying legally. Someone then says " Is there an A certificate test for slope glider pilots, or do we have to join a power club and fly a power plane and pass the test? If there is a "slope/glider" test, how is it conducted, and by whomI . Anyone know the answer? Not so simple as an A test is it.? I don't think the A test is/was envisaged in the ANO. Perhaps they only intend an online test re safety and legal knowledge required to fly models within the law of the ANO, accepting that the physical ability to fly them is acquired as it is at present.?

Well BEB, no it maybe isn't "all that clear". Maybe as Marty says the devil is in the detail. I hope not, and that simply being a member of BMFA will allow such members to fly their model planes ( as opposed to drones)on flying fields, slopes and fields much as they do already. But you having a dig at the "doom and gloom brigade" seems a little unfair ( to put it politely ) after all, they were merely saying that if the status quo remains then come August there would be a big problem. Now this latest statement seems to calm all those fears. And things will stay as they are.. Good. But then we find you don't want that. You now want every B MFA member to be an A certificate holder ( or presumably they will become law breakers if they stay as they are.). I know many BMFA members, some members of Clubs, some not, who are not A cert holders, and do not wish to be. ( particularly glider pilots), but you would impose your requirements upon them. Even though the "good news" statement isn't going there at all.? So much for wishing to keep things as they are, as much as possible.

        Posted by Cuban8 on 09/06/2018 10:30:24: So, boiling all this down to a brown mess in the bottom of the pan...........are the powers that be, concerned that our lawful activities as we have carried them out up to now, and if allowed to continue as such, risk coming into close conflict or collision with unmanned commercial vehicles and will therefore pose a danger to property, life and limb? answer is in the affirmative, then exactly which of those commercial operations are potentially at risk from us? A blanket answer of 'all commercial operations' no matter what, seems wrong, because as has been pointed out, some commercial operations are carried out in a localised environment and within their operator's LOS (surveying, agricultural work, photography as a few examples among many others). How will a model aeroplane be a risk to such operations, when it's abiding by the rules that have existed up to That leaves us with the commercial, fully autonomous (drone) machines that are predicted to be so ubiquitous by appearing overhead (presumably) at a frequency similar to vans on our roads today, that some conventional logistics will be seriously diminished to the point of being uneconomic. Is the current fear that model aeroplanes will be entering an environment so dominated by machines from Amazon, Google and others, that collisions will be inevitable without the new restrictions on us? Has there been any real investigation and challenges to the validity of the huge drone business expansion claims by the companies? What then, if the predictions actually turn out to be as good as 'electricity to cheap to meter', humans on Mars by 2000, supersonic transport for the masses etc? What good will come of implimenting the rules now on aeromodelling?""   I haven't for a moment thought it wa s about us modellers getting out of the way of commercial drones from Amazon and the like. This legislation has come about to stop the unauthorised drone activity where commercial aircraft have had near misses with thes e idiots who send up drones all over the place. The pilots have pressed for this and who can blame them?. What is wrong is that we modellers, power fliers, thermal fliers et al have been drawn into inclusion of this legislation by the definition of SUA. That definition meant to capture all possible variants of what we commonly know as drones ( and it has ) , but it has captured us as well. Hence the worry that soon we cannot fly above 400ft. Just to clarify, if not already done. Gonzo said the date was 31 May that we can no longer fly over 400 ft. He is wrong. The date is after 31 July 2018. The legislation may have come in during May, but the date for illegal flying over 400 ft is July. I hope Beb's optimism is well founded, but the silence from BMFA is worrying. Least they could do is tell us what they will be expecting to gain. We know that thermal gliding,and occasionally flying power planes a little higher than 400 ft ,will pose no bigger problem after 31 July than it has done in all the years beforehand, and they should be demanding the the powers that be should acknowledge that and let it continue.etc etc. Whereas are we expecting them to be going to the meeting with a bowl with which to catch crumbs?     Edited By Dave Rose on 09/06/2018 16:51:50 Edited By Dave Rose on 09/06/2018 16:53:56

oh yea Posted by Ikura on 07/06/2018 14:02:55: Posted by Rich too on 07/06/2018 13:28:08: It is a shame that the powers that be are choosing to throw a blanket over every type of model. It will be interesting to see how the regs will be enforced.   The laws/regulations can not be enforced in general but the laws will be there so if they wish to prosecute following an accident/incident it is not possible to dodge it. It's a bit like driving while using a hand held phone. A lot of people do it but never get prosecuted because there are not the resources to stop it. To a greater degree the law depends on the decency and honesty of people to obey, and it is there to enforce it if not. No one is going to chase a slope soarer or thermal glider pilot for flying above 400ft but if we do there is the possibility that we will get charged if something should go wrong. That's how I see it but others may feel differently. Edited By Ikura on 07/06/2018 14:04:59 ------------------------------////////-------------------------2 Perfectly correct. As I said earlier, it isn't so much a case of whether  Police will be enforcing the Order, but where participants stand when an accident occurs , as in , say, a thermal glider competition. Insurance will not cover it ( an apparent illegal act ) , so solicitors look to fliers, organisers etc via civil actions. What organiser or competitor wants to risk litigation for thermal soaring. Easy enough to prove as illegal when height limiters are presently set at 150 and 200 metres and the whole stated aim of the event is to soar high. Ok - some clever chaps might say " we launch to 300ft before motor cut, then soar below 400ft.at all times in our competitions" Oh yea! Get some insurance company or civil court to swallow that.   As things stand at present, thermal soaring in U K should be worried.   Edited By Dave Rose on 07/06/2018 18:06:51

  Posted by The Wright Stuff on 06/06/2018 10:44:10: Posted by Dave Rose on 06/06/2018 10:37: "Technically, no it can't. It doesn't rise through the air, the air rises, carrying the glider with it." No, not technically, more like pathetically semantically! ""For a sufficiently lightweight drone, it would do the same with power off. Such drones might not be available now, but I imagine they would want to future-proof the regulation."" My definition was an example, obviously to be refined by those who write such in laws. There are hundreds of definitions within laws, e g. A road is defined in the Road Traffic Act. Many people here have their idea what a road is, but that does not matter. As far as the Road Traffic Act is concerned, it is what THEY say it is. So it would be under the ANO. What they define as a glider would override yours or anyone else's idea of a glider, even the ultra lightweight gravity defying multicopter drone you have yet to invent. And is a very important word in law. So if a glider is defined as , say, 'a sua designed and constructed and intended to be flown as a glider, and to be capable of gaining height when flying without using power', then I doubt if a drone could be so construed. As well as somehow miraculously having to be shown as capable of gaining height without power, it must also have to be shown as having been designed and constructed and intended to be used as a glider.  You should also be aware the Courts can and do "take judicial note " of everyday understanding of the description of things. E g if a Court is told about a cat, then it doesn't have to be proved to be a cat.- or a this or a that.Or a glider. And perhaps even they may understand what is meant by rising in the air.😀       Edited By Dave Rose on 07/06/2018 00:30:10 Edited By Dave Rose on 07/06/2018 00:31:20

Posted by PatMc on 05/06/2018 23:48:54: Posted by Dave Rose on 05/06/2018 23:20:24: Gliders an d other model planes are caught up in the ANO definition. It is not practical to have each thermal glider meeting or individual practice flight having to have an application sought from and granted by the CAA. What the BMFA must do is negotiate an exemption of the ANO applying to "gliders" These to be defined as SUAs designed and constructed as gliders and capable of gaining height in the air without the use of power. Seems simple. What drone can rise without power? Come on BMFA- tell us that is what you are going to go for. Edited By Dave on 05/06/2018 23:21:23 "That doesn't help electric self-launched gliders - probably the most common type of flat field "glider" now." Yes it does. Even with an electric motor, it is still a glider as in the suggested definition. I.e it can still rise in air without power.

Posted by Peter Broughton 1 on 05/06/2018 19:58:09: ""I would love to believe none of this will affect us but as a glider flier who only goes out when the wind is suitable, trying to get an exemption at short notice for a specific location as an individual I can foresee being a problem unless the BMFA can get blanket clearance for these sites. But as they have the only one of these for a fixed site and as a well-respected organisation I doubt we will be able to. If that is the case, and I have been assured this applies from 1/08/2018, all glider fliers will have to restrict themselves to organised events, even retirees who can go any time. As someone else has stated we are a non-commercial group and the drone manufacturers are a huge possibly multi-billion pound lobby group"""   It seems agreed here that the reason this new ANO is coming is because of the advent and use of multicopter thingys known as "drones" Gliders an d other model planes are caught up in the ANO definition. It is not practical to have each thermal glider meeting or individual practice flight having to have an application sought from and granted by the CAA. What the BMFA must do is negotiate an exemption of the ANO applying to "gliders" These to be defined as SUAs designed and constructed as gliders and capable of gaining height in the air without the use of power. Seems simple. What drone can rise without power? Come on BMFA- tell us that is what you are going to go for.       Edited By Dave Rose on 05/06/2018 23:21:23

    Posted by ChrisB on 02/06/2018 13:24:26: As BEB says and as many people have been saying, the regs are aimed at the amazon and birthday brigade. The CAA are still working through the details. Their focus is not aeromodelling its the new breed of ‘leisure users’. No need to panic. It’ll all be ok. It does not matter at whom the regs are "aimed". What matters is what the law as written includes. If you read Article 94a it says any sua cannot fly above 400ft ( without CAA permission) anywhere - and that law comes in on 1 August this year. That's it. Unless a change is brought in as a result of bmfa lobbying or anyone else's lobbying, or for whatever reason, then thermal glider fliers sending machines over 400 ft will be breaking the law. Forget whether or not they will be found out by plod or not. If an incident arises from such a flight ( e g bad accident with serious injury ), then the insurance company will not cover such a situation. Who then pays?, asks the injured party's solicitor? Anyone who in law he thinks is responsible. Flier, and/or competition organiser, landowner where comp to place? This is the possibility of flying after 31 July - as things stand at the moment. It is not panicking- it is facing facts. One hopes to hear that someone has lobbied successfully by then to have proper and meaningful exemptions put into place. The BMFA to say we are talking is a step, but one would hope for a little more detail at this stage.       Edited By Dave Rose on 02/06/2018 16:32:10

The announcement on bmfa website makes it clear that the Gov is about to change the law in respect of drones. As far as the definition of drones goes, we are people who fly drones. Small unmanned aircraft are what we fly and therefore in law, we fly drones. Most of us don't fly those quadcopter thingys that are a nuisance most of the time, and are the machines at which this upcoming legislation is aimed, but nevertheless, all model aircraft including gliders have become drawn into the definition. Therefore, until the legislation spefically excludes gliders, I can see a problem after July 2018. That date is clearly mentioned, as is 400 ft. And that will be used, you can bet, by any insurance or legal action,, after that date in any possible incident arising from , e g thermal E soaring competition occurring after that date, unless this isn't clarified PDQ. It seems to me that the BMFA have some work to do, and quickly, for their Thermal competition minded members.