Peter Beeney

    Erfolg,         I have to say, that in the main, that I would very much agree with everything you say. Certainly, if you try and consider ALL the aspects of a certain situation, sometimes it soon becomes apparent that it’s not what it seems at first glance. But, by the same token, sometimes it’s also difficult to actually anticipate all the aspects clearly, frequently they can be very well hidden.     As far as lithium batteries are concerned, I understand it’s just lithium ions used in the manufacture of the cells. After the early experiments, lithium metal was considered too dangerous. So the landfill solution may be, exactly as you say, the best way forward.     But, if we pick up on your ‘I am an advocate of each of us thinking about what is the  best solution,’ words, though, then we can look at it from yet another angle.. ..or two.  And also try to consider all the aspects...     One topic that is raised nowadays is that of raw materials. Or rather, the lack of them. In the case of our lowly lithium’s, all the time the basic stuff is lying around, it’s fine and dandy. As it gets harder to find, it must consequently get more expensive. At some point, there is surely a cross over point, where it becomes a viable option to at least consider recycling. So the question I might ask is this: ‘Is it better to practise recycling first, before we we reach that point, or wait until we’ve passed it?’ I suspect this is already a preoccupation in some quarters, relating to some consumer items. Also it may be a more serious line of thought for the longer term.     Then again, looking at it from yet another view, perhaps someone might decide they have a very vested interest in getting lithium’s banned from landfill. One way of doing this would be to get them banned from production. You may well feel this is far-fetched, and you may well be right, but pressure groups can be very persuasive, and successful! In your words, vested interest can become the driving force. Could this be interpreted as commercial pressure? One way of countering this might be not to send the batteries to landfill in the first place. So the question I might ask is this: ‘Is it better to practise recycling first, before we we reach that point, or wait until we’ve passed it?’ Had this happened with respect to nicads, then maybe they would still be freely available. For some applications, nicads still want a lot of whacking!     Of course, there  are yet more angles we might also want to check out, such as - what is the next technology…  fuel cells, maybe…  or perhaps a super cell with recycling specifically in mind. As is done with many other products these days, I believe.     Just some idle thoughts about an ever ongoing subject.              PB

    Craig,         Perhaps I can add some useless information about the Frantic. This is all from memory, now fading fast, so apologies if it’s not exactly spot on.     Around the 1980’s to 1990’s a brilliant model pilot and modeller called Bob Ryan designed and developed a fun fly type, which he called RaRa Avis. I’m sure there was an article by Bob in the mag, at some time, and a plan. In collaboration with Avicraft, this soon metamorphosed into the Frantic, a kit, I believe, and an ARTF. For starters, they could use the basic Panic fuselage,  which didn’t need too many alterations, because this was also becoming very popular. They also supplied a smaller single wing model, the Manic. I owned one of those, too. This was around the time the ‘fun fly‘ style was, to some extent, de rigueur!       I bought my Frantic second hand, my power plant was an Irvine 36, in fact, two, over it’s lifetime, I had some bearing troubles. However, when I spoke to the Man in the Know, it transpired that Irvine had used a ‘special edition‘ line of ball races.  (Read, cheapo!).  So it wasn’t my treatment of them after all! The 36 turned a 10 by 6 like a 40, and were nice and light.     Flying characteristics are benign, totally harmless. You can get away with an almost anywhere CofG. Obviously, I don’t know your flying style, but if you are bit unsure start with it forward, 25% chord, and move it back until it’s as lively as you want it. You can adjust the control throws to as much as absolutely possible, on everything, you will still not be able to crash it. It’s all a matter of taste. Cutting back on the control throws a bit, I often used mine as a trainer, it is totally docile, but at the other end of the spectrum, you always have full control, even in the wildest of indescribable manoeuvres. Most importantly though, I would consider anyway, keep it as light as possible.     They are as tough as old boots, too. Mine lasted a long time. I’ve had a couple of other makes of similar since, but they’ve shattered in mid air, probably due to excessive G. I don’t think that will happen to the Frantic.     I’d like to think that in Bob’s hands, and also some of the other Avicraft gang, it still might be a bit competitive in fun fly comps even today.     Catching up with your thread, it will certainly prop hang. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect you generally need a forward CofG for this. And as Bruce says, practice, plenty of practise and then more practise: in my case, to the point where I didn’t think I ever would get the hang of it. Sorry!         PB 

    Erfolg,         Yes, very sorry, my apologies, I confused the issue somewhat. Please read ‘collection point’ where I’ve said ‘recycling facility.’ I agree, I would certainly see the actual working plant as being capable of dealing with a very large area. Ideally, all the components that make up the cell would be reused in one form or another, but we might not have got quite to that stage yet! Technically, we may be able to do this now, perhaps, but until all the economic and political minds start to work in accord, it may be difficult to implement. Again, I agree entirely about your government statement etc.     The author of the ‘Chackfield Chat’ letter does have such a collection point. Unfortunately, we don’t. I wonder what the percentage of ‘do have’s’ is to ‘don’t have’? I’ve no idea. I can only hope that, eventually, there will be one everywhere!     I don’t have the latest global consumption figures of, say, lithium polymer cells, but it may be that aeromodellers only account for a small fraction of the total. My laptop uses Li-Pos. How many laptops are there? And mobile phones?  The figure may surprise even the most optimistic of guesstimates.     One day it may be necessarily economic to reprocess indeed almost everything. Whilst in the meantime, the carbon debate continues apace, with everyone talking and nobody listening. But that’s only me just being cynical again.        PB   

    Erfolg,               When I first saw the original assessment of the Directive I thought it was fairly unambiguous. The fact that all battery materials should be recycled seems to be a good idea, there would then not, in theory anyway, a lot of waste to dispose of. But, there was also some speculation as how some of the material could be recycled. However, since then, it seems to have been watered down a tiddly bit. We still don’t appear to have a recycling facility locally, for small cells, but I’ll have to confirm that at High Level within the Local Authorities hierarchy.     I know you can still obtain nicads, maybe the fact the military also still use them, I believe, also has a bearing on this. I don’t think they would want to change, nicads are the only cells that pass their extreme specifications, like, continue to operate under all conditions! If this Directive insisted that all nicads were always recycled, and the consumers were given an incentive to recycle, such as a small refund for handing in the old, when buying new, there would never be a need to ban them!     When I was working, many years ago, we used to go to the Stores for components and parts. There was always a cardboard box on the counter for the old batteries, almost all nickel cadmium's, which I believe the Storekeeper always sent back to the Distribution Point. This was entirely voluntary, the Storekeeper had a green hat, even then. There was no official procedure, i.e. from the Industry, and there probably still isn’t.     There is a long way to go on this battery recycling lark, the sheer scale of production is mind boggling, if you start to think about it. And with the level of our activities being on an ever steepening exponential curve, it must surely only ever get bigger and bigger, at least in the short term.     Any advice, for instance about lithium’s, might be limited to each individual case. If you haven’t got a recycling facility, you haven’t got much choice. How far would you, or perhaps, should you, travel to find one?      I did mention this before but I think it’s very important to really make sure the cells are duff before you throw them away. Having said that, lithium’s particularly, once they appear to need a zimmer frame it is definitely the cell that is exhausted. Sometimes they seem to fail quite quickly, and so far I’ve been unable to find a lasting recovery technique.     What’s all the ‘no potential to produce a current‘ bit? Is this Erfolg’s version of Ohm’s Law, I ask myself, which he calls Bin’s Law? Would this be a case S = R/T, where S = Scrap, R = Rubbish and T = Tip?     Only kidding!     PB  

   Houston, we have a problem.    The system has gone to rapid fire.....    Could someone delete two posts, please.

    Erfolg,         From memory, there is a European Battery Directive, which I think came into force in 2006, which states that ALL battery material, from ALL batteries, must be recycled. I have a feeling that somewhere I’ve seen a note to say that it will apply in GB around 2012. But I stand to be corrected.     I’ve always been slightly concerned about disposal of waste batteries which is why I only throw them away, both my own and other people’s, when it is absolutely necessary. It’s possible that far too many cells get scrapped before they are scrap!     Because we don’t have the proper disposal facilities locally, around the time when the Directive was looming, I called in at our local Town Hall, to get some instructions. I spoke to the lady on the front desk and then I soon found myself talking on the phone to the Lady in Charge. To give her credit, she did understand the problem, and she knew all about the Directive, but her words were along the lines of; “ Forget batteries. We’ve still got a mountain of freezers and fridges to get rid of. And the Government hasn’t given us any instructions on these yet. The best I can tell you is, wrap them in newspaper and put them in the wheelie bin.” As far as I know, this still stands, at least in our neck of the woods. I will go and make some more enquires. I have to say, though, we can dispose of lead acid car batteries ok.     I think this Directive means that no material, from any battery, should ever find it’s way into landfill. Nice thought, but the implementation might be a trifle more difficult! To get all the details, such as why this is so etc. you would have to read it. How much time have you got?     Also a bit of a guess, but I think by now battery manufacturing might be the biggest industry in the world. This could be the number one consumer item. For interest, batteries are produced from perhaps less than 0.1 Wh up to in excess of 10 MWh. Not many other products have a size range of this calibre.     With regard to the carbon issue, the best unbiased report I can find is that we are now at the end of a warm inter-glacial period and a new ice age could start at any time. Although I’m not stocking up on thermal underwear just yet. Also on the carbon and temperature issue, it seems that general climatic temperature rises precede carbon dioxide level increases. In other words, the increase in temperature might be responsible for the carbon increase. Which perhaps turns the debate on it’s head, to a very small extent. Didn’t Al Gore get his famous graph inverted and someone had to point out the fact that he was reading it somewhat inside out? This discussion? will rage for many years to come, I guess.     I’m off to fit some ski’s on the undercarriage of the models!    PB     PS. I shall use a ruler marked in milli-cubits, just in case we have to consider an Ark, too. 

    Erfolg,         From memory, there is a European Battery Directive, which I think came into force in 2006, which states that ALL battery material, from ALL batteries, must be recycled. I have a feeling that somewhere I’ve seen a note to say that it will apply in GB around 2012. But I stand to be corrected.     I’ve always been slightly concerned about disposal of waste batteries which is why I only throw them away, both my own and other people’s, when it is absolutely necessary. It’s possible that far too many cells get scrapped before they are scrap!     Because we don’t have the proper disposal facilities locally, around the time when the Directive was looming, I called in at our local Town Hall, to get some instructions. I spoke to the lady on the front desk and then I soon found myself talking on the phone to the Lady in Charge. To give her credit, she did understand the problem, and she knew all about the Directive, but her words were along the lines of; “ Forget batteries. We’ve still got a mountain of freezers and fridges to get rid of. And the Government hasn’t given us any instructions on these yet. The best I can tell you is, wrap them in newspaper and put them in the wheelie bin.” As far as I know, this still stands, at least in our neck of the woods. I will go and make some more enquires. I have to say, though, we can dispose of lead acid car batteries ok.     I think this Directive means that no material, from any battery, should ever find it’s way into landfill. Nice thought, but the implementation might be a trifle more difficult! To get all the details, such as why this is so etc. you would have to read it. How much time have you got?     Also a bit of a guess, but I think by now battery manufacturing might be the biggest industry in the world. This could be the number one consumer item. For interest, batteries are produced from perhaps less than 0.1 Wh up to in excess of 10 MWh. Not many other products have a size range of this calibre.     With regard to the carbon issue, the best unbiased report I can find is that we are now at the end of a warm inter-glacial period and a new ice age could start at any time. Although I’m not stocking up on thermal underwear just yet. Also on the carbon and temperature issue, it seems that general climatic temperature rises precede carbon dioxide level increases. In other words, the increase in temperature might be responsible for the carbon increase. Which perhaps turns the debate on it’s head, to a very small extent. Didn’t Al Gore get his famous graph inverted and someone had to point out the fact that he was reading it somewhat inside out? This discussion? will rage for many years to come, I guess.     I’m off to fit some ski’s on the undercarriage of the models!    PB     PS. I shall use a ruler marked in milli-cubits, just in case we have to consider an Ark, too. 

    Just to recap on my previous post, and to get some more facts and figures on the 2S Lipo and the voltage regulator, I thought I might run a little test procedure past myself, similar to what I’d done the first time around. This post does contain lots of boring facts, figures and rubbish.       This is a 1A, 6V reg, I’m not sure of the drop-out voltage, let's say it might be 1.2 - 1.5V. I’m not too worried about that though, it’s the battery top end that we might be more concerned with.     I used a constant 1A discharge rate, trying to ensure that the regulator was working considerably harder than it would be under flying conditions. I assumed a standard battery working range from 8.4V down to 6V. The regulator was out in the open, with no heat sink. At 8.4V, discharged for half an hour at one amp, it’s hot to the touch, but not too hot to to hold. The output is a constant 6V. Or to be pedantic, it’s just under 6V; but that’s exactly the same as the open circuit voltage anyway. Dropping down to an input of 6.8V, the output is down to 5V. At input 6.4V, output 4.8V.  Right down at 6.0V, output 4.4V. Below this, the output voltage dropped away rapidly, but the 1A current output was maintained constantly. I ran it for about half an hour at all of these settings. At no time did it appear to be be overloaded or overheating. When these things get up to around the 150 degree C shutdown level, they are finger-blistering hot!! One of the tests I did originally, was to connect the wing up and then constantly stir both sticks for about 5 minutes, again something you couldn’t do in the air. It didn’t even get warm! However, I’m not really keen on this sort of caper, I tend to think it starts to wear things out!     The drop-out voltage is the minimum voltage between the input and output at which the stated voltage and current can be maintained. I personally consider this is never really going to be a big issue, with me anyway, because I’m extremely unlikely to be taking the receiver battery volts down to anywhere near flat.     Low drop-out 6V, higher current output regs might be a bit thin on the ground, so if we would really like a higher output type, one answer might be a low drop-out 5V version. And then bump it up to around 6V with the help of a couple of small silicon rectifier diodes. Then you could take the 2S battery down to 6.6V and still have a 6V supply. The KA278R05C is a 5V, 2A, low drop-out regulator, the drop-out voltage is 0.5V at full rated current, less at flying currents. Of course, there is absolutely no reason why it can’t be used at 5V anyway; it’s just that I try and raise the rx supply to 6V whenever possible.     With the greatest respect, I feel that I might need to approach some of the comments with a degree of caution. But I will make an observation about Phil’s suggestion about lowering the battery voltage with the use of diodes. I’ve just checked 5 1N4501 general purpose silicon 3A, 100V diodes at 500mA and the average forward volt drop is 0.8035V.  Lets call it 0.8V. Using this as a de facto standard, then 3 in series would result in a total drop of 2.4V. Connect this to a fully charged battery, 8.4V, and the rx voltage is 6V. Just right. However, when the battery is down at 6V the rx is at 3.6V. I wouldn’t want to go there! Admittedly, the battery is flat at this point anyway. But if you never wanted to get below, say, 4.6V at the rx you would not have to let the battery volts get below 7V. Using just one diode would narrow this ‘step-down’ voltage a bit, thus our 8.4V starting point would be 7.6V at the rx. This may be acceptable. But at the lower end, the 6V battery would equate to 5.2V. Much safer!     I’d guess that 4 in series might just be a little bit too ambitious!     And can I add please, none of this is at all intended as a criticism, merely as an observation. You pays yer money, and you takes yer choice!       Hope some this is of interest, at least.                     PB

    Phil,   Yes, the ESCS were attached to brushless motors.     When I did this little exercise, I used a 12V lead-acid battery as the power source, to establish a robust source of working watts. I was making sure I knew what was hot and what was not.          I’m a little bit cautious with new installations, particularly electric. It’s very easy to overload something without being aware of it. A mate gave me a flight pack once, a nicad, that he’d used to power his new creation, an own design multi-motor ex-glider. The pack had been hot, so much so that on one cell the heatshrink had actually melted and was virtually welded to the case. But, after I’d renewed this cell he carried on flying. After making some adjustments, though.  They were tough little cookies, nicads!     Good Luck with the Cargo.                PB      

     I have always also been intrigued by the idea of separating the BECs, ever since it became a popular idea in aeromodelling mags many, many moons ago.  So I wonder if I might add a slightly alternative view here.     When two, (or more), voltage supplies are connected together, I think that Kirchhoff’s Voltage Laws play a part here and they suggest that, amongst other things, current from the higher voltage will flow toward the lower one.     If we  measure the output voltage of our standard BEC,  inevitably classed as 5V,  we find it to be generally (always) very slightly lower than this, typically 4.987V. I suspect this is just traditional. This one, of course, would be thirteen one thousandth’s of a volt lower. Another one would be very close to this, but not exactly the same. The BEC’s sole purpose is simply to maintain this voltage under all circumstances, within some given parameters. If the load increases, it will increase the current flow to maintain the voltage; if the load is reduced it will likewise reduce the current to prevent the voltage rising.     For the purpose of this exercise, let us consider two BECs, one with an output of 5V, the other at 4.75V. These are sitting on their ESC’s, busy supplying current to power some of the other components on the ESC. Now we connect the lower volt one to a receiver, where it will also supply the current to drive the radio. Essentially at 4.75V,  ± 0V.   All’s well and good.     Now we connect the 5V to the receiver, in parallel with the first. Consulting Kirchhoff, we notice that the higher voltage will drive the current to the lower one. Instantly then, the 4.75V reg. sees the higher voltage, fancies a rest, and shuts down. The 5V will supply all the necessary current, to both ESCs and the radio, simply because it is now the local muscle and is the king pin at supplying 5V!     This can be a difficulty in paralleling transistors, diodes and other such non-linear devices etc. One invariably seems to lead, and wants to do all the work. In our example, if the 5V became overloaded, or overheated, and subsequently shutdown the 4.75V would seamlessly wake up and take over.  That, however, should be well down the road apiece…   … or more…  but you never do know with us aeromodellers, though, we just love to take things outside the box, to coin a modern phrase.    Well outside, in some cases!     One solution that is sometimes tried in the man sized stuff is to provide a very low value, identical, close tolerance resistor in series with each output and then common all the outputs of these together. Then when the highest output transistor starts to conduct first it’s small differential value voltage is dropped across it’s resistor. Thus the next in line sees a slightly lower voltage and starts to conduct. So then it’s small differential voltage is then dropped across it’s resistor and the next in line sees a slightly lower voltage and starts…       The net result of this is that they hopefully then share the work around.     This may happen to some extent when we connect two normal BECs to one rx, the voltages will be very close together in value, and we have a low series resistance in the shape of the connecting leads. I’ve paralleled four ESCs to a receiver, given the whole thing a good workout, far harder than you would ever be able to do in the air, whilst checking the temperature of the regulators with a contact thermometer. One warmed up more than the others, the highest voltage one, of course, but they must have been sharing, because they only became very slightly warm, even after a prolonged bashing.     Thus we can now see that we can connect two, (or more!), BECs together with impunity. I’ve always been puzzled as to why the idea of isolating the BECs is so persistent. Incidentally, the same theory applies to BECs and batteries, too.      As always, this is only my take on what might be a tiny conflict of ideas. This might not be considered advice that you should, in fact, do this.      Eric,  I, too, started out as one of ‘god’s poor orphans,’ a few light years ago now, it seems!             PB

       Mark,   I wondered if I might add a few comments to the thread. Judging from your post, it would seem you might be a bit unfamiliar with voltage regs. The two example you have quoted are variable voltage regulators, I believe. Is there any reason you particularly wish to use these?                                                                                                            When lipos first appeared on the scene, I used a 6V, 1A fixed voltage regulator to drive a standard SPAD model, with 5 servos. Using a 2 series pack. With some very exhaustive ground and air testing this proved to be well within any overload limits. I was unable to get anywhere near the temperature required to shut it down, that’s around 150 degrees C. Indeed it was hardly getting warm. I used two different makes of packs, from two different suppliers, both batteries were 9% down on capacity from day one, and then one pack suddenly and completely failed overnight. So I went off that idea a bit at the time. Lipos are much more reliable now, I guess!                                         I installed mine in the switch harness, and as Eric says, this needs to go on the receiver side of the switch. When I tinker about with these types of chip, (all these components are colloquially known as chips), I solder short tails to the legs of the components. The legs are relatively quite fragile, sometimes just bending them about a little bit can break them off very easily; usually very close to the body; and then it can be the very devil to get a connection. Another way would be to bend the legs at right angles just once, fit the legs through the holes in a small piece of Veroboard, (or strip-board) and then solder it on. Then you can fix the various wires at will.      I would consider that a 1A regulator, when it’s hanging out in the open, in the wiring harness, will power the radio in a normal size model without flinching. A larger model, with digital servos, or a helicopter perhaps, may well require more power.                                       As Brian says, there won’t be any interaction with 35 MHz, or any thing else, come to that. Also there is no point in up-rating to 3 or more cells for more capacity. This will only add to the overheating problem too. Some arithmetic will show this; as will the physical evidence, too.  And you also need to keep an eye on the pack, to prevent it going below 6V. That’s 3V/cell! I fitted a flashing led to my model, to warn me if I’d left it switched on. It actually worked in anger, once, when I spotted it ticking away in the back of the car, just as it was getting dusk.                                                                                     Electrically, these are quite tough. You are unlikely to zap it if you get a misconnection. Once in operation it’s very difficult indeed to break it. It simply shuts itself down for a short while. This saves the regulator but can result in the model trashing itself! As as been related in various other threads!       If you require any other info please come back.            PB  Edited By Peter Beeney on 29/11/2009 21:29:17

    From the evidence that I’ve seen, (admittedly very little) the case for and against the existence of a problem has never really been proven. I gather that there are many, many hotspots that certainly cannot be linked to electricity pylons. As Erfolg might say, it all depends on who conducts these studies, and also how these studies are conducted, as to how then the results are construed.     To continue the discussion regarding the pros and cons of overhead HV lines, versus underground HV lines, as I said before, it does seem as though the overall costs are getting much closer. Add to this some of the difficulties of overhead lines. Let’s consider where the electricity needs to go? Generally speaking, right into the urban areas. So now we have a problem of actually finding a route to start with, then obtaining planning permission, already this could take years. Sometimes impossible, even. Underground would be much more simple. Here we’ve lost the electric and magnetic field effects, which will cheer up the environmentalists, the transmission losses are significantly lower on UG power cables, which will undoubtedly slightly mollify the ‘ban all carbon’ lot, and, of course, they are unseen, which totally pleases just about everybody!     The Southdowns, the line of hills from Beachy Head to Winchester, is at the moment becoming a National Park. Already there are moves afoot to get some very long, 400 kv pylon lines that go right across the countryside, underground: this may never happen but I’d bet the pressure to do it will be powerful and relentless. Forever! Some lines have already been buried.     One of my work colleagues was a bit of an historian on the quiet, and I can remember him explaining how, when windmills first appeared on the scene, the anti-brigade set up fierce opposition on the grounds that they would destroy the countryside. Now look at the efforts we go to to try and preserve them! As he said at the time, “ When will we be trying to save the last pylon?”     Tony, perhaps you need to set up a game plan and an anti-pylon campaign. Find some Great Crested Newts and a few sites of Special Scientific Interest and you might be able to lay a few delaying tactics. It might be just possible to change things, particularly as there is an alternative.     Maybe the problem for the future will be in finding enough power to feed into the wires!     Good Luck!                PB  

    Regarding the safety differences between AC and DC, I believe that in some cases AC is thought to to make the muscles contract. Thus if you are gripping a wire, say, you may not be able to let go. On the other hand, it is said, sometimes it can ‘throw you off’. In general terms, just a few milli-amps of current can be lethal, which is why it is difficult to get the safety circuit breakers just right.  Although some people do seem to have a very high natural body resistance, I’ve seen reliable evidence of that!     Regarding the pylons, I think the underground system is getting closer. I believe there are 400kv underground lines running, one such is about 10 miles long, in a 3ft diameter tunnel. The cables now use a very high temperature plastic insulation, and with management systems like temperature monitoring the cable can, if necessary, be grossly overloaded for short periods. Yet another case where a thermometer doubles up as an ammeter, perhaps? The tunnel is about 20 metres below the surface, sometimes much deeper, with a monorail system for maintenance and inspection; and enough space for another cable if it’s ever required.  One advantage of such an arrangement is that the maintenance is very low.       Some systems do use DC, the power swap arrangements with the French, under the English Channel, is HVDC. There are inverters at either end to convert it back to AC.     If a really cost efficient way of boring suitable tunnels evolves, and I’m sure it eventually will, then maybe many more power cables will go under ground.         PB       

        This is a tale of an errant Y lead which may be of some interest.     My club colleague has recently described a chain of events which has caused him much muttering under his breath. He has a JR tx with a Spektrum module and an AR7000 rx. He also has a aerobatic model with 2 elevator servos, one on each half. Connected together with a Y lead, and then into the AR7000, they work together as intended. Except that one servo constantly moves about the centre point, it permanently jitters to and fro. Always the same one, lets say it’s on the left hand side. So we swap the two servos over, still it’s the left hand one chattering. So then we change the Y lead legs, from left to right, again the same left hand one continues to oscillate. This oscillation varies from a small movement about the centre up to a random and sudden full servo deflection, where it then stops and jams, which he can only correct by unplugging the servo and moving the arm back, or by switching the rx off and on when it then resets. And then resumes it’s constant chattering….. He’s taken all the gear out of the model, so the servos can be separated as much as possible, no difference, tried three different Y leads, including a short one, different voltage batteries, plus a UBEC, all to no avail. Plugging the lead into the rudder output position, or indeed any other control socket, alters things not one jot or tittle. Thus he would have the same problem if he used a Y lead on the ailerons. Making one Y leg longer with an extension lead, no joy is seen here, either. He’s tried moving the tx from close at hand to far, far away. He’s changed all the servos, in fact changed everything except the rx, and still the fluttering continues. The only thing that does make a difference is actually taking the ‘good’ servo out of the Y lead, then the ‘bad’ servo works normally. This effectively turns the Y lead into just an extension lead, but it does, on the face of it, appear to imply that there is some interaction between the servos.     I’ve not actually seen this in the raw, so to speak, as yet, but it is now getting a trifle difficult to know what to suggest that is different to try and effect a cure.     He has decided on the alternative way out, so that he might proceed to some flying, mixing ele/aux2 so that the two servos operate from two channels. I think that the ailerons are mixed on ail/aux1 so that he can meddle with the aileron differential. All the switches are disabled, to prevent any inadvertent operations, and the servos are synchronised. This works perfectly well, neither a quiver or nor a twitch, ever, does he see!     It’s difficult to see how the rx is at fault here, and yet at the same time how it is not. He thinks Santa may dib up another AR7000, so maybe he can try a comparison test later.     He may also try a quick substitute with his old 35 meg rx, I’m sure that will be fine.     He probably will consider an email to Horizon Hobbies to be in order too, it certainly couldn’t do any harm.        Another club mate had some problems with a petrol engined model, Futaba 2.4, two elevator servos on a Y lead, not the same fault though, just simply some erratic operations; previously it had been ok on 35. He cured it with a couple of digital servos. Something the JR man has been unable to try as yet, it may well be another answer!                At the end of the day, this persistent pesky problem only occurs when the Y lead is connected. So that appears to be at fault. But is it? When you switch on, one servo starts fluttering; and then, what ever you do, that servo is the only one to be affected. I’d have thought that at least you could do something to make a difference. From our previous experience of 2.4 and ignition battery interference it may be that the decoupling requires a coat of looking at. Some strategically placed capacitors might have some effect.         But, we may never know! Until he requires another two channels I feel that he might leave well alone! Thus it may forever remain an unsolved conundrum.           PB

    James,     A friend of mine encountered a vaguely similar sort of problem, many years ago. This was a yellow Breitling Extra, with, as I remember, a 46 power plant. I can’t remember the maker. This started to roll out of loops, I think both inside and outside, and, like you, it started to drive him nuts! We expounded all sorts of weird and wonderful theories, but all to no avail. Eventually, although he did like the model very much, he was just about on the point of getting rid of it.     One day, I was examining the wing for the umpteen time when I made a significant discovery. A small piece of the plastic covering had lifted. Looking closer, the underneath was covered in one piece whilst the top was covered in another piece. The top piece wrapped around the leading edge by about an inch overlap or more, and then was cut straight along the length. We found that this overlap had become detached for the whole length of this half of the wing. However, because it fitted so perfectly, and stayed in place so well, it was impossible to see this under normal conditions. And we’d certainly never thought of checking it. It was just sheer luck that we spotted it.     Then, of course, it was instantly obvious what was happening; particularly in the loops. The cover was lifting along the leading edge of the wing! Sealed down, problem instantly solved. 100%!     I think it would be too much of a coincidence if this was in fact your trouble, much more likely to be a standard trimming problem, I suspect. I’ve found that moving the GofG right back on aerobatic models can make them a bit unpredictable, especially with lots of sudden elevator. I think your theory of the twisting elevator would only hold good if the elevator horn is on the right. But I’d have thought that any elevator roll input must almost be negligible anyway.     I owned a Dave Smith’s Models ‘Joker‘ once upon a time. I was the third owner of a beautiful flying model. One day I was slow rolling near the ground at full speed when it continued rolling straight in. For a short while I began to doubt my flying ability until the next day when I’d recovered sufficiently enough to sort it out. The Solarfilm had torn and lifted from three quarters of the top of one wing. In a very strange way I was quite relieved to find it.     So I have good cause to always keep a close eye on the covering!    PB

    Just to add a few more comments here, I acted as test pilot recently for a club mate with a DeAgostini Spitfire. He’d bought it on eBay, with a Leo 46 as motive power. This one had the prop on back to front, as bought, and the model had never flown. I’ve got a couple of Leo’s, one in an Aerotech Spitfire, magnificent!     On the look around it did occur to me that the tail plane did appear to be a bit flimsy, which I remarked on, however nothing ventured, nothing gained so away we go. The takeoff, as stated previously, is certainly interesting, it requires a very light touch and I got lucky! A very lively climb out, a big wingover to turn, it’s already hands off, that’s nice, and a fast run back across the strip. I do like to keep the speed up on test flights, especially small ‘unknown quantity‘ low wing “I will catch you out if I can” type man traps. Then came a loud whirring sound, the dreaded control surface flutter. I closed the throttle but too late, the complete tailplane had already parted company with the fuselage. I think the owner is going to have a go at repairing it, but if I owned one I would really, really carefully check out all the control surfaces at the very least; they need to be 100% secure and rigid for fast authentic warbird action.     I think that both Leo engines and the Aerotech range of kits are now defunct, which is rather a shame, I thought they were excellent value for money.              PB  

    Erfolg,       Yes,  I think your point about cause and effect is very valid. However, if you can acquire a little understanding of how the components work it does also help to make some sense of it.     Here is true story. Some years ago a colleague of long standing made his own design electric aeroplane. Based loosely on a Super Sixty, but with a bigger wing that had a flat centre section and polyhedral tips. Powered by four 600 sized brushed motors, all driven by the same speed controller. The fuselage contained a large number of nickel cells, “for long duration flights.” The model  flew around the sky very sedately, but it did require a great deal of full throttle just to do this. One day, after a few minutes flying it suddenly dived into the ground and, in the way of these things, was damaged.     He had lost all control. When we got to it, the radio was working perfectly. He was using PCM, so that ruled out interference. On closer examination, we found the speed controller wrapped in foam rubber, for “vibration protection.” He also had a battery plugged into the rx via a standard switch. This was just for backup, in case the BEC failed. It transpired that on this particular day he had made up his mind to go flying at the last moment and hadn’t had time to charge the battery; so therefore he hadn’t switched it on, thinking that it was very unlikely that the battery would be required.     So what was really going on here? First clue, looking under the foam rubber, it’s own little thermal jacket, we found that the speed controller had obviously been getting very hot under the heatshrink. Next, we have to examine the BEC/battery relationship. As I’ve said before, the BEC monitors it’s own output and if the voltage rises above 5V it turns off a tiddly bit, if it falls below it winds up the wick until it reaches 5V again. Typically, the actual voltage might be 4.9981V. The battery voltage might be typically 5.5957V. Connecting both to the rx simply connect them in parallel. So the BEC now sees an incoming voltage of 5.6V, and because it is 0.6 volts higher, it simply shuts down. Thus the battery supplies the current to drive the components on the speed controller, also the rx and the servos. Now we can go flying! The battery voltage will slowly begin to drop, and if we keep going for long enough the voltage will drop down to 5V. At this point the BEC wakes up and begins to supply some of the current. If you put an ammeter in each circuit you can watch this happening. Thus the battery voltage will not fall greatly below 5V, but if the BEC should fail for any reason, it will continue to supply the load.      So this is what actually happened. The speed controller was always overheating, and in fact the BEC was always suffering thermal shut down. But, with the battery on the job, this didn’t matter, and went unnoticed. On this fateful day, however, it now becomes very apparent what occurred. I’m convinced that, had he switched on, there would have been ample amps to have done the business anyway.     A couple of points. We can see from this that a BEC/battery combo, normally considered by aeromodellers to be a definite no-no, undertaken by disconnecting the positive wire, can actually be quite beneficial in some circumstances. Also, the tenacity of this speed controller at least, performing, I’m sure, above and beyond the call of duty. Not realising that the foam rubber was a big mistake and also thinking that the battery was simply on standby were slight misapprehensions taken by the pilot, I do appreciate that this was an unusual situation, but it does serve to illustrate the sort of conditions under which some model aeroplanes do perform.     So now you should be a couple of streets ahead of me, and using this as an example, you might be able to suggest how you could consider installing the hurry-up-stuff in your models.     I’m sure you can run 4 servos from a BEC ok, provided you know it’s rating. If you don’t, then it really is pot luck. OTT ground testing first!     Not sure about the  Essence of Elephant or Parfums d’Lion, trying to give them up myself. When I tried a couple of dabs behind the ear, I definitely felt a little on the lonely side. A rampant Staffordshire Bull Terrier on steroids is also probably quite good at making the pesky critters decide that the next county is better…!      Hopefully, this might make some sense, but I’m not entirely sure about that either...    PB

    Hi Erfolg,                      Thanks for your reply.  Certainly I think, but it’s only my opinion, of course, that the separate rx pack is the answer. There are many reasons, maybe, why the ESC fails, but it might take some careful performance checking to pinpoint them. It’s been said a few times, or indeed many perhaps, that heating the components is to be avoided at all costs, so Boots’s admirable suggestion, above, about the extra heatsink, must be well worth considering.     I have a friend that I’ve been flying with, around twice a week for at least the last ten years. He has always flown electric, generally small to medium size models but always pushing everything to the limit. He has had some spectacular failures, with both the electrical and the airframe bits, very impressive, but he always just cheerfully remarks, “I think I got it a bit wrong again!” - or words to that effect. Mostly, of course, it all works very well!  As with some other electric modellers, he’s also always had his share of little radio induced problems, the ubiquitous glitch. He changed to 2.4 when that appeared on the scene, but that did not entirely cure the problem so he took the step of installing a rx battery in every model. Instantly no more glitches, twitches, or other uncalled for deviations from his normal?? flight pattern. Irritable control syndrome fixed. He has said too, that the extra weight of a teeny-weeny nickel pack has no apparent effect on performance. From a safety point of view too, I’ve always thought, for a small variety of reasons, the rx battery is the best option.     Having now said all of the above, I’m sure, as I’ve again said before, many model pilots have simply used the standard BEC set up for ever without any problems at all.     Also, slightly contrary to popular modelling convention, I don’t have any problems with connecting the battery (4 cell)  directly to the BEC, without disconnecting the red wire. In the vast majority of cases this would go unnoticed anyway, but I do have one classic story, about batteries connected to BECs which illustrates my point perfectly. This could be the subject of another post, perhaps.      Very pleased to know you’ve found the answer, even if you don’t quite entirely yet know the whole question.              Stay Lucky!     PB          

    I have been following this thread with some interest, and because it is sort of continuing from a long distant thread, Spektrum AR500 brownout recovery slow, I think I am still rather curious about a few facts and I may well have some more queries.     I still have a bit of a problem with the actual concept of ‘brown out’. I find it difficult to understand how the receiver voltage gets down to this level, 3.5V from 4.8V, even momentarily, to trigger the shutdown. I’ve done some practical experiments and I’ve been unable to drop the voltage down by this amount, 1.3V, even when applying a fault that would be severe enough to render a model unflyable, such as two stalled servos. This is using some old but sound NiMH’s, 4 cell AA size. I shall try and make some more efforts, using a greater variety of battery packs, but I shall be surprised if I get any vastly different results. The only time I can see this happening is when the battery is fast approaching a flat state, which is not good idea with any airborne model, whatever the radio! I would be inclined to think too, that some of the reasons and theories given for this happening, such as a faulty battery, or wire corrosion, or indeed anything that is not actually part of the radio itself, will apply equally to Futaba 2.4 or 35 MHz etc.     Then there is the shutdown itself. As I at first understood it, the rx switched off when the voltage reached 3.5V, the battery then recovered slightly, say to 4V, but I never found out what that level was, this must take a finite time, and was thus considered too slow, the model having crashed in the meantime. So now we have Quick Connect, which fires up the switched off rx again instantaneously.  So, the rx sees a volts drop down to 3.5V, rx shuts down, QC instantly switches it back on…    ….fine…    ..but the rx voltage is still 3.5…    ... so the rx shuts down again…    QC instantly switches it back on… ..but the rx voltage is still 3.5…... ??    The net result of all this shilly-shallying around the maypole is anyone’s guess…  I guess!      I think to really resolve this conundrum would take a proper investigation, which may well be done at some stage. With regard to this, I have watched the video on YouTube - Understanding Spektrum and Futaba Low Voltage Claims, by John Adams, Technical Director of Spektrum. I realise this is only comparing the recovery times of the different radios but there are some questions I would like to ask.   Debate for another post perhaps?  One significant thing, amongst many, was the fact that that in the test, both receivers (Spektrum and Futaba) did not drop out until 3V; as opposed to 3.5V, both recovered at 3.1V. Thus implying, to me anyway, that QC cannot re-connect until the voltage has at least recovered to 3.1V.    Worth a comment?     I’ve witnessed a number of Spektrum problems at the flying field, one of which was a lost of control, resulting in a crash. The radio was not working within the remains, but neither was a second model the pilot had with him. So we assumed a tx fault; but a few minutes later, for no apparent reason, both rx’s were working perfectly. All the gear was replaced, with a covering letter saying, “ We could find nothing wrong, but we’ve replaced it all anyway”. Then I was watching a model when it violently glitched, right over the strip, and then it did it again before the pilot could land, although he did get down safely. If it is impossible for the rx to cause this then maybe the tx can. Some sort of spurious signal transmitted maybe? Same radio gear replacement, same letter. Then a brand new set lost contact long enough for the pilot to abandon hope and was resigned to a crash when it suddenly recovered and he was able to land. It had gone to ‘fail-safe’ because the throttle closed. This was an AR500 but I don’t know what the other two sets were. Set replaced. Lastly, very recently, a pilot  took off, first flight with 2.4, the model went straight round a large loop at full throttle and crashed. He said that from the moment of opening the throttle to take off he had no control. From the safety angle again, this is not good news. This is a very experienced pilot, and the ‘low power‘ range check had been perfect. He was using an AR7000,  a unit with a main rx and a satellite rx. There are two red leds, one on each rx. The unit was working afterwards, although the throttle servo was jammed because of the damage so we disconnected it. As he walked away with the tx to try a full power range check I noticed the leds go out and contact was lost.  This was only a very short distance. Walking back a few paces, the leds re-lit and contact was regained. There was no range at all. I don’t know yet what the outcome is.     One thing I’m very certain about, none of these incidents were caused by low battery voltage or any power problem, they were just faults on the radio equipment itself.       It does seem remarkable that all these incidents all appear to be related to Spektrum equipment. I believe this is actually JR/Spectrum, in some cases, is it not? JR are a fine company, at least as far as I’m concerned, and they potentially have a lot to lose here. I’d have thought they would soon like to get a grip on this.            PB

    Flytilbroke -    Maybe we could consider that the situation at the moment is exactly as you describe it. Every club HAS got different standards. From none to whatever extreme they wish. As I said in my post of 06/10/2009 23:01:53, because model flying is unregulated, exactly as David has also said, individuals can alter the ‘guidelines’ to whatever degree of self-indulgence they choose. In my opinion, and also firsthand experience, this can sometimes be draconian. All on the pre-text that this is ‘The BMFA Rules’; and although the BMFA  might agree with me personally that this NOT so, by written letter indeed, they will do nothing to correct it. Again, I know this as fact. I think it would be extremely difficult for the BMFA to impose such controls to correct it, for starters, what authority would they have to do this have to do this? I totally accept that this should be adjusted at club level but it’s certainly not always that easy. Read, in some cases, impossible!     As an example of severe rules, how about the one that I mentioned before, ‘If you don’t pass the A test, you will not be allowed to rejoin this club next year.‘ This little gem has been around for a long time, but where is this in the handbook?      Fortunately, probably because there are very few incidents, there are no legal quagmires. There are noise complaint disputes, in which the model club involved I suspect, usually ends up losing, as in our case, many years ago, simply because a wealthy landowner had more clout than the club!         Martin,  I would certainly consider David’s points. For about three milli-seconds and then go along with them. All the way. I’ve always had the feeling that the rise in numbers of members was also in part due the BMFA’s ruling, instigated around 1980, as I remember, that all affiliated clubs must have 100% membership. Also as I remember, this resulted in the resignation of our Chairman, from the post and the club, when the club decided this, because he did not agree with the ‘closed shop‘ principle. He’d worked for many years in the printing industry, and had seen first hand what it was like. This near closed shop attitude, as I see it, may also account for my increasing perception of David’s very apt description - self-appointed over-seeing body. One question I’ve been asked, what exactly are the advantages (for the club) of being affiliated. I’m afraid I don’t really know.     One query I would raise, at what level do you establish supervised? Would  you, for instance, insist on standing permanently with a non A pilot, even though he had the ability of perhaps a competent B pilot? Whilst someone who shows you an A is simply allowed to get on with it? I only ask because as I described, when we flew with the gliders, had you appeared as a visitor, I would have insisted on standing with you to start with. As soon as I knew you were capable, I’d have said “ You’re on your own, son”. However, if subsequently you had given cause for concern, then I would certainly have pointed this out. The whole club was at stake. And as a general rule, we still operate this way.     Fortunately, I reckon that most clubs do function on a very satisfactory basis, with the members just enjoying the flying.  Which is exactly how it should be.     PB    

    Martin,         Thank you for your comments.  Yes, as I said in my post that you noted, I was involved in something similar too, so from then on I’ve always examined the newcomers tx crystal. Also they are very much encouraged to convince me first that they know exactly what is going on before they even get anywhere near the ON switch. This is hopefully not as harsh in practice as it sounds, we always try to be a friendly as possible; and suddenly, to a large extent, this is all now beginning to seem very much ‘old hat’.        One of the little effects of the dual use of 2.4 and 35 that I’ve seen on two occasions has been simply the aerial (on 35) has not been extended and that’s resulted in a crash. Simply because it was forgotten, as a result of using 2.4, and the pilots, being honest, admitted this! By implication then, would it not also be possible to momentarily forget about the 35 frequency control system, which ever type you are using?  From a safety point of view, any cause of a  crash is not good news. Perhaps extra vigilance is called for here.  A possible ‘A’ test Local Rules question, perhaps?       I’m sure the vast majority of tests are conducted in perfect order, and, indeed, most of the ones that I’ve witnessed have been beyond reproach. However, there is one slight inconsistency that I’ve noticed, at different sites and over time.  And that’s the A pilot that takes off on his own, gets into trouble and then has to be ‘rescued’, by one way or another. It happened at our club site, quite recently. A club mate brought along a guest, who had wanted to volunteer his ‘A’ BMFA card as proof. It seemed his own club were a bit pedantic about that sort of thing. He took off, immediately flew over the pits area, wandered around the sky for a bit and then my colleague had to land it for him. This was a sedate stable model. Our reaction was, let’s get you back in the air, and practice some circuits. Rather regrettably, he declined, I think he was too embarrassed, something I’ve also seen before.   With the best will in the world, I know this can happen, this is not a criticism, just an observation. But I think I would like to see the A test, at least in some cases, carried out in a slightly more precise way perhaps. With good emphasis on confidence.       Regarding the cash for passes question, I believe this might not have been a lone incident. I have heard that some examiners have had their status removed for exactly similar occurrences.     As I understand it, the club nominates a candidate for Examiner, then applies to the Area Achievements Scheme Co-ordinator who then arranges an interview between the candidate and an Area Chief Examiner. This route has to be taken. The  Area Chief Examiner appoints the Club Examiner, and that should include a fairly substantial test of proficiency. It’s this bit that can cause me some concern, I’m not entirely sure that this is always as robust as I would like. The club then re-ratifies the appointment on an annual basis.   But that’s all bye the bye, as is the definite relationship between the 'old boys' and the Area Chief Examiner, at least on one occasion. This is all in the past, but it did lead, in a very round-about-way, to a minor altercation between myself and the BMFA; this has never been resolved. So I’m not the BMFA’s biggest fan, although I do try and keep to their guidelines, where possible.       Trying to keep on track, and going right back to your first post that started this thread, I have to say I don’t seem to be able to recall having seen the situation you describe. Certainly there are some extrovert flyers, but they always seem to be wanting to obtain certificates, not deliberately avoid taking them. Still, it takes all sorts, as they say, to make an aeromodelling world. When I started out, I made the mistake of thinking that everyone in Aeromodelling must be a ‘Good Fellow’. Since then I’ve realised that the political infighting and power struggling in  some parts of the model flying world almost makes the Parliamentary shenanigans look like a perfect paragon of virtuosity.  Even so, I do admit that about 60 years of aeromodelling, including around 40 years of r/c have given me much pleasure and I’m hoping to continue for at least a while longer.         Appreciate the thread!   Carry on the good work!      PB             Edited By Peter Beeney on 14/10/2009 13:38:41 Edited By Peter Beeney on 14/10/2009 13:40:55

    Phil -   Sorry, I’m afraid I didn’t make myself very clear in my answer. What I was trying to say was that this question, about converting 34.960 MHz to a Channel Number appears (to me) to be a perfectly valid one. The syllabus requires answers from the BMFA Handbook and Local Rules and this question is about an actual example used in the Technical Information in the Handbook. Page 67. If you know this answer then this proves to the Examiner that you have indeed made the necessary studies.  And in my view frequency control is where it all starts. The BMFA also considers this to be important, when taking a test, the failure to comply with the prevailing mode of frequency control results in an instant failure. I’m not sure that any other transgression is considered quite so seriously.     My version of ‘understanding frequency control‘ is this, when starting with a brand new beginner. I would explain briefly how the 35 MHz Band is divided into Channels. Then the importance of making sure that no two same number channels were ever switched on together. We used a frequency board ‘tombstone’ style control so the very first move was to create a temporary tombstone before we did anything else. It was the way in which we used this that was the all important part. Had we used a pegboard, that would have got exactly the same treatment. That was as far as the frequency description went at that stage, however, quite often the questions would soon start to arise, such as - what is dual conversion? etc. Then we could get into it as deep as they wished. A very long time ago I did a Final in City & Guilds Radio Communications, although somewhat perversely I didn’t work in radio, so at least when I was stumped I sort of knew where to find the answers! As it happens, this is all still current, although I now belong to a different club, we operate in exactly the same way.        Aeromodellers come from all walks, and ages, of life, many and varied levels of ability and many different hopes and ambitions. Some people find flying models easy to cope with, others extremely difficult. I think with patience and perseverance it’s possible to get anyone to the stage where they can fly safely on their own. And then to pass the A test is the icing on the cake; this is definitely achievable. For some, it’s just a formality on the road to an aerobatic award perhaps, for others, it’s the pinnacle of a very long learning curve.     Having said all the above, the 2.4 comments by Terry Whiting, BB and John Privett are interesting, frequency events now seem to be overtaking proceedings. I’m sure that the examiners will take this into account. 35 MHz is still very much in evidence but the rules will have to be re-defined in relation to 2.4 and the test, I would very much think that it will be very simple.  For the moment, at least, I think the questions still have to be generally based on the current Handbook. By coincidence, we are updating our club rule book at this very moment in relation to 2.4 use. So, of course, our examiners will be able to study and use this information if necessary, in the local knowledge questions.     This is all the theory, in practice I suspect it’s usually far more simple.     Certainly I won’t get you wrong, Phil, as you say, it’s all a very good debate. And, staying within social language constraints, I’m all for saying what ever you want. If it helps someone along the way, so much the better.                 PB                

    Ed - I think you’ve got it about spot on. I’ve found though, that most folks want to improve their standard. Anyone consistently flying below the A standard, from choice, must be pretty unique.     As I said recently in another thread, Learning to fly on your own, by Ernie, we’ve recently gone down the ‘A test for solo flying‘ route. This was was a full club decision, taken by voting on, and passing, a proposal. This ensures very little argument or disagreement. We did consider the options, but always came back to the A test, because, on paper at least, it’s the nearest thing we have to a standard. The need had never arisen before, but we’ve just acquired a second site and we’ve done it to try and protect the club as a whole. There is a busy road, and a railway station, near enough to be within reach of an out of control model going downwind. This rule only prevents ‘non A’ individuals going to the site and flying on their own, we are very flexible and we would certainly not prevent a capable pilot from flying on his own, when others are present. On the contrary, we would positively encourage it; along the lines of the full-size pilot that’s gone solo but working for a PPL. We like everyone that needs it to ask for as much help as possible, and like to think that as much as possible they get it, and that helps to maintains a very friendly atmosphere,     We developed a club test years back, before the BMFA’s version, and that’s now long gone, as in my previous post in this thread. However, from our experience, I suspect your club rules are fairly robust, with regards to the full-size. Your ‘out of control model syndrome’ rule is prominent, I would think. I believe that actually quite a number of modellers fly with the full size.                   I certainly concur with your do-gooders standpoint too, the thing that always makes me vaguely uneasy is the Children and Vulnerable Adults carved in stone ruling, I’d never be surprised to see an official person lurking about. ‘If we can’t get ‘em one way, we’ll get ’em another!’       I’ve always thought however, the one that really would get noticed would be a high profile incident involving a model and a full size!          PB 

    Phil - Thanks for your reply and your comment, I shall watch out for a cheque in the post.     Regarding the frequency question, I think I might have a slightly different take on this. Looking at it from the guidance for newcomers point of view I consider that understanding frequency control is the most important first step. It’s always the first thing I mention anyway.  As far as I’m aware, the 2007 Handbook is the latest edition we have. When that was composed 2.4 was still a bit of a baby, although it does get a mention; indoor models only, as I remember. So it’s this book that’s considered essential reading, although that should not preclude a 2.4 question, I hope. Being able to answer this question does imply that, by being able to transpose the frequency to a channel number you do have some knowledge of the subject. The little calculation is in the handbook. There has always been confusion here, I can quote case histories, suffice to say that as a result of a ‘near miss‘ frequency clash I resolved to always inspect the beginners crystal, no matter what he tells me. Like the flying test, this is never questioned, in fact, there is usually a desire for more information! This has paid off on at least one other occasion since. 35 MHz, although disappearing, is still around and I’m noticing that it’s dual use (one pilot with both frequencies) is giving rise to it’s own little set of problems.     If an examiner failed an A test candidate, for mixing the ANO numbers up, in an otherwise satisfactory test, I think that’s it’s the examiner that wants help, not the pupil. And, frankly, as I look again at these Articles, I’m thinking perhaps that it’s actually me that really needs the help!     And then there’s the insurance. For some years we did displays and demonstrations at fetes and other weekend pursuits. The organiser did prefer not to get involved with the BMFA, although we were an affiliated club, so he always provided a separate insurance. This was extraordinary cheap, it transpired that model flying was (then) right at the bottom of the risk list for sporting activities. I could only think that’s because there are so few claims due to it being such a relatively minority pastime; I suspect this has not really changed a great deal.     So, hopefully, the BMFA fees will not escalate too far again this year. And while we’re at it, what are the chances of a concessionary rate for OAPs? With a retrospective back payment maybe? Or would that be one soaring swine too far?            PB         

        Part 2     I think the reason for all this happening is because model flying is unregulated. So I’m pretty sure it’s the case that the BMFA can only ever provide guidelines. Individuals are thus able to construe these guidelines however they think fit. The BMFA admit they will not get involved with any Club disputes for instance, I suspect they cannot, for there are no mandatory or statutory rules to cover it. Is it not the case that there are only three statutory laws, Articles 73, 74 and 98 of the Air Navigation Order, that can have a direct bearing on any incidents? These appear to be only a form of command, with little instruction on how to achieve this. I’ve never read or heard of a case where these laws have been evoked, even in the tragic fatalities that have happened.  So it’s perhaps difficult to abide by these laws also.     Comparisons have been drawn with Driving Instructors and Examiners for instance. These are all professional people, this is their employment. Surely they will all have had to take a standard training course and pass a standard exam at the end of it? That’s slightly more rigourous than the BMFA ‘A’. Would it be better to look at and compare other recreational pastimes such as mountain climbing or sailing? Or even foot launched paramotors? These are all also unregulated activities, I believe.      One particular little club rule that seems to crop up from time to time is the one where the beginners and perhaps longer term learners are told, “If you don’t pass your A by the end of the year, you will not be allowed to rejoin this club.”  And it always seems to be accompanied with, “This is the BMFA ruling.”  I really do think these sorts of anomalies should be leaned on and straightened out.      I’m not trying to be critical here, just stating it as I see it. I feel that if model flying ever does become regulated it will simply just be banned. Collectively, we are not large enough to have any clout. But that might also work in our favour. In the general scheme of things we may be small enough to go largely unnoticed and thus stay under the radar. Lets hope so.      PB