Club Bans 35 MHz

[Andy Symons]

Posted by Peter Beeney on 13/12/2011 16:28:22:

Also in the News there is a briefing that the Insurance has been significantly updated, for anyone that’s not managed to read it yet. One of the most notable things for me is that the age related issues have been dropped. I’m now in that area! I wondered it this explains the £2 increase? Or partly, anyway. I would agree with Andy Symonds on this one, at the moment this has to be decided at the BMFA AGM by the members present at the time. Edited By Peter Beeney on 13/12/2011 16:31:25

No, the £2 increase is nothing to do with the insurance, the treasurer was asking for a £1 increase, basically to cover increased costs such as postage, printing, fuel, utilities etc etc. However the member at the AGM was concerned that the budget was too tight and with further expected cost increases such as postage in the pipeline he helt that £1 wasn't enough, seems the others present agreed with him. As far as I know the insurance costs are about the same with the new brokers.

[Andy Symons]

Posted by Big Phil on 13/12/2011 16:41:07:

Wow, what a response.

 

I did not know what to expect from this, but one thing is for sure, no other member of this forum has said that they're club has banned 35MHz.

Our club announced the ban a couple of months ago and I am not aware of any one complaining, as strange as it may sound.

 

Phil

 

You say the club "announced" the ban. Was it put to the members to vote on or just presented as a new rule by the committee, fait accompli???

 

 

[Erfolg]

I am totally opposed to any motion which arises from the floor, where less than 70% or less as a proportion of the membership is present, then committee then deciding if to implement the motion.This scenario is open to much abuse.

 

Fees are a concern to all members. The basis that the monies are used is also relevant to all members. The basis for the proposal for any increases in subscriptions should be presented to the members. It is not unreasonable for the membership to decide via a vote by all, if they support the changes.

 

It is not demanding for members to either be permitted an internet vote or postal vote, in either time or money.

 

With respect to clubs, where committees are able to decide what is acceptable, without a mandate from all members would not be a club I would join. Any club is not an individual, or a small section within the organisation, it is all the members.

 

Committee members are there to carry out the day to day functions of the club, in accordance with the wishes of club members. In a democratic organisation there is no room, for executive decision making. Any official of a club who cannot in conscience follow the wishes of the members, could and should resign there role.

 

It is supposed to be the 21 st century, not 15th century with autocratic absolute rule. Clubs and the BMFA should belong to all members and be democratic, and not serve sectional interests and wishes.

[Phil May]

Presented as a new rule by committee, not put to members for a vote.

[fly boy3]

And no doubt the exellent flier who originaly brought this thread into being is a committee member ?  Cheers

Edited By fly boy3 on 13/12/2011 19:02:38

[ken anderson.]

without knowing the full facts its hard to judge the committee....but i would say that the members must have No say in the rules....which i find hard to believe in this day and age.....the scenario i'm trying to imagine is that the majority of members ---99% must allready be on 2.4ghz.......and the other 1% of members must be using 35mhz?... still a funny way to run things if the committee can bring in what they see fit...

 

ken anderson ne..1 35mhz dept..

[Phil May]

FB3

 

Bit confused on your comment,

I brought this thread to light, I am a committee member, BUT, as stated at the beginning, I am against this.

 

Phil

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Our committee is empowered to introduce rules as it sees fit but they're always ratified (or not)at the next AGM and it's entirely open to the membership to call an EGM if there's any serious objection. I would imagine this is the model most clubs work on?

 

If you work this way and haven't had your AGM yet, then a well presented case might get this over-ruled. Certainly, if the forum membership is typical it would need a well argued case to keep the rule as it is it's very clear that it isn't just 35 MHz fliers who don't see much sense in a blanket ban.

Edited By Martin Harris on 13/12/2011 20:15:19

[Erfolg]

The Martin Harris club approach seems a practical means of acting where an unexpected and serious issue arises. Allowing swift action, and then a more measured response of the members.

 

Some safeguards are necessary if this sort of arrangement is adopted, to ensure that it cannot become a preferred method of instigating change under all circumstances. With reasonable people an unlikely event.

 

It would also seem an opportunity for the BMFA to recommend a preferred "club constitution" and boiler plate procedures for the typical club. Such an approach could ensure that clubs do run both efficiently, ensuring that the club, committee and the members are protected legally from litigation, that is avoidable. It would detail the responsibilities and requirements of club representatives and their duties. Perhaps it already exists?

 

[fly boy3]

Hi Big Phil, my apologies, I was in no way referring to you my friend. I think you stated at the start of your thread, that the unfortunate member who lost his model is a fantastic flier. It was his accident that started the ball rolling. I have a vested interest as I fly on 35 meg, and have no hope of changing to 2.4 Gig due to money constraints. Cheers. Hope this clears up any confusion.

Edited By fly boy3 on 13/12/2011 21:36:14

[andy watson]

I can see the thinking behind this ban.

 

That doesn't mean I agree with it- it does seem like a knee jerk over reaction to a single incident.

 

As soon as anyone mentions "safety" 2 lines routinely get trotted out.

 

a) It needs to be the top priority at all times.

b) It is absolute madness designed to stop us having fun.

 

The real truth is is it somewhere in between. The cuts from props clearly show this hobby has the POTENTIAL to be dangerous. The low incidence of accidents shows it is a "safe" activity. The hobby relies on people being able to manage risk sensibly by balancing 2 factors- risk (the likelyhood of something going wrong (low in our case)) and hazard (the seriousness of an incident should one happen (potentially high)).

 

The problem with 35 Meg is not that the system doesn't work- obviously it does. The real issue is that there is NOTHING you can do to prevent many incidents. With 2.4 (any system) as long as you have made all reasonable checks and followed good procedures you can be pretty much certain you are OK. If you do the same with 35 Meg you can suffer a catastrophic crash (hopefully just financial) purely as a result of someone elses actions. This is a serious shortcoming. In the pre 2.4 gig days people were very concious of this, and I suggest discipline was better. At our club the few remaining 35 Meg fliers are foreever hunting lost pegs, then giving up and flying on the frequency anyway. This hasn't led to any accidents as far as I know, but this is because there are rarely 2 at the field together...... but one day! On this basis 2.4 is inherently safer than 35 (all other things being equal).

 

The real danger, to my mind though, is not from within the club, but from outside- or a well intentioned ebay equipped newbie. You do not know what is just over the nearby hill/hedge/house. I could easily see a situation where (as a non RC flier) I decide to mess around and build a robot, or a car, or something and take it out to my local park for a mess around. I wouldn't know the regulations, I might not know the flying club is there, I might not know that I could interfere with others, or what the different frequencies mean! I could cause havoc, and you might never know I was there.

 

The situation is made worse by the increasing size of models. It sounds from the OP that this guy was flying a model that maybe a few years ago would only have been at a show. I don't know anyone that flys a model powered by any IC engine less than a .40.

 

If it is a serious worry in the club (and remember the club site might be in a sensitive location where crashes could cause difficulties), my suggestion would possibly be:

 

a) All 35 meg fliers have to have a scanner. (They can use the money they save on receivers!

b) A weight/power limit.

c) A distance limit where the models should be kept closer over "safe" ground.

 

These would seem to be more rational well balanced responses to the concerns, but the comittee should not be castigated for trying to minimise risk, but perhaps subtley steered in a more moderate direction.

[Erfolg]

Andy

 

The risks need putting into proportion. I am certain that any professional risk analysis as routine undertaken by the "Oil, Rail and Nuclear Industries" would result in a numeric risk for either 2.4 and 35 which are not dissimilar.

 

I am confident that the biggest risk is the modeller themselves, closely followed by the model.

 

Too many people who believe that they are so competent that they are blinded to their own limitations. The bravado of forcibly blaming anything other themselves, can often convince others to their infallibility. They may well be more experienced and skilled than the rest of us, but they are fallible.

 

I do agree that 2.4 can have some advantages over 35. I think we are all starting to see 2.4 models having unexplained crashes, which we would in the past blamed on the radio system. As a 2.4 owner I can also say I have rarely if ever had a radio issue that was not explainable whilst flying 35. However 27 was not anywhere as reliable.

[andy watson]

I'm not entirely certain what the oil, rail & nuclear industry has to do with the issue, but I think I made clear I felt the risk of mishap in the hobby was very small.

 

However, the definition of acceptably small does get smaller as the potential impact gets bigger. And what might well be a very big jet is a serious bit of kit in the sky.

 

And, as I also made clear- I feel the reaction was OTT, but I can appreciate their thought process.

[Myron Beaumont]

Andy

Well spoken .A very balanced point of view . Thank God I can fly where and when I want up here in the N.Yorks dales .No bloomin' commitee /coucil /H&S telling me about what is right and wrong though .Someone mentioned about noise of guns firing at pheasants earlier on (I think it was this thread?). That gets up my nose here 'cos certain land owners -you know the sort I mean - breed them -let them loose-then shoot them in their so-called season . Our local pheasants know when we feed the chickens in the morning and join in .They are protected by us and by the law .The males are so beautifull. I wouldn't dream of eating one.Rant over !

[Erfolg]

Andy

 

These industries are relevant, in that they do not and cannot take the view that no risk is acceptable, which is the approach adopted by some bodies to prevent activities they do not approve of. There is a need and indeed processes and calculations to understand what and where the risks lie and there numeric significance. Which is part of the process of managing the risk to an acceptable level.

 

I think you are really arguing that there is a need to adopt a more rigorous approach to heavy, maybe fast flying models. It could be that they should as a matter of normality have system duplication and backups etc. I have concerns at the thought that a heavily loaded, jet powered model could be operating anywhere near me, without serious consideration as to how the risks are managed by an engineered systems in case of total or intermittent failure of any part of the system. It is not enough to say it is a Fasst or Specktum etc. system, that is the starting point, not always enough in itself.

 

If I am interpreting things correctly, many 2.4 radio suffer the less than perfect receipt of the signal. It may generally go unnoticed by us operators, yet is not perfect. I also understand that digital radio transmission has been avoided in the past due to the acknowledgement that errors were inevitable. Although not a RC system, both my digital radio and television via the aerial are prone to break up, particularly under certain environmental conditions.

[Myron Beaumont]

Erfolg

Just a thought regarding transmission & the reception of radio signals. Do you think that maybe the aerials we use maybe could be a bit more sophisticated than the way they are .That is to say -more multi directional than just having the perfect transmission in one orientation and anywhere inbetween down to zero communication being the worst possible scenario? ie tranny pointing at the A/c and the receiver aerial(s) pointing away ? Funny how Spektrum twin set ups seem to suffer from what I've read more than the twin aerials on Futaba single Rx set ups . Yes ,you've guessed,I'm a Futaba man & never had a single problem .I expect Timbo will have something to say being a devotee of Specktrum gear without problems!

PS Eric knows a bit about the propagation of radio waves I suspect

[Erfolg]

Myron

 

What I know about aerials is Zilch, nothing, diddly squat.

 

Being old, I have heard of so many promises of the perfect system, which turn out to have feet of clay, I no longer believe. Be it cds, which would last for ever, could be spread with jam, scrathed or anti lock brakes, that did not like polished ice.

 

Yet the biggest fault in most control systems, is reoccurringly us.

 

 

[Myron Beaumont]

Erfolg

Yes ,I believe it's part of this consumerism syndrome we all live under .We strive for the best but in a months time something else "must have" is inevitably there to make things "better"

As Dickens' character said "Humbug" Seasonal Eh !

[Andy Symons]

Posted by Big Phil on 13/12/2011 18:25:28:
Presented as a new rule by committee, not put to members for a vote.

Ah, in that case have a good read of the club constitution, hopefully the club has one. It is not unusual for a club committee to be able to introduce rules in the event of a "safety" issue without refering to the club membership (sensible as they have a duty of care) however it is usually the case that these rules have to be ratified at the next AGM by the membership.

 

Erfolg

The BMFA do have a "Club" constitution available for clubs to use as a sensible basis for there own, just a case of ringing the office for it.

 

 

[Terence Lynock]

If the 2.4 gig frequencies had not been made available would they still have labelled 35 mhz as dangerous?, if 35 mg is dangerous then it would never have been adopted in the first place and we would still be on 27.

Its strange the way yesterdays bee's-knee's become old technology and unsafe to use as soon as something better comes along, Li-po batteries are just about the most dangerous power source on the market for our use but I dont see them banning Li-po's in favour of NimH.

 

[Tony Richardson]

2.4 is a fantastic advance in this hobby but and it is a big but it is not the answer to every safety issue that arises as some people are inclined to think, banning 35 mhz (72mhz over here) is a knee jerk reaction to a problem that may or may not exist, I think if every pilot is honest the majority of incidents can traced to problems other than radio interference, a rx with failsafe enabled, or one of the many devices that can be fitted between throttle servo and rx to cut the throttle to idle should signal be lost serve just as well. As mentioned a natural rate of attrition will see 2.4 become the norm in a relatively short time.

 

As for the adoption of the new rule at said club if it was not introduced in acordance with the club constitution it surely cannot be valid and should be challenged and brought before the membership as a whole for a vote, and I think this is where Big Phil started, like it or not if it was introduced in the correct manner it should stand, either way I think if I was a member I would be looking for a new club, this one sounds a little like some of our Governments doesn't like to listen to put them in power, but that's a whole new topic.

 

Good luck Phil..

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited By Tony Richardson on 14/12/2011 02:39:39

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

What Phil hasn't mentioned is whether this rule actually affects any existing members. It could be that all of them are already on 2.4 GHz and have disposed of their 35 MHz gear. If so, then any disagreement is unlikely but if I were a 35 MHz only member I would not be happy if this had been introduced without the consent of the general membership.

 

2.4 has been widely adopted within my club as is likely to be the case at virtually all other clubs but we still have a considerable number of (in the main) less regular members who have not upgraded. It would be unfortunate to marginalise those people who are less committed or simply can't afford to update.

[Peter Beeney]

I think I might see this from yet another slightly different angle, too. If this is actually a ban as a result of just this one incident with the turbine, then I think I would be extremely interested in the cause of that that crash. Probably starting by looking closely the battery! For instance, did it have any sort of onboard battery monitor? In all my experience, for what it’s worth, I’ve always found the source of ‘interference’ to be local to the model. I’ve said before, with the advent of 35 MHz I bought a scanner and I scanned the modellers chunk of the bandwidth, plus a few channels either side, very regularly at a few different sites, for long periods at the time and over the course of time, for some years in fact, and I always found it to be as dead as a Dodo. I just don’t bother anymore. If you are systematic about these investigations you can eventually be pretty sure as to the cause, but the pilot’s view is sometimes a bit hazy. In this case, from Big Phil’s description, it seems the model may have been quite close to the pilot when it finally went in. If that is correct then that would imply that the model was receiving a full strength signal from it’s own tx. For an interfering signal to blot out the required signal it would at least have to be as strong, or stronger, and also on exactly the same frequency. So someone else on the field switching on with the aerial up? In other words, a shooting down? The chances of any long distance incoming interfering signal being that strong and centred on exactly that frequency must be so remote as to be discounted.

This is, of course, complete and total speculation, I have no idea what happened. But if this was anything other than genuine interference on the 35MHz bandwidth, it’s very difficult to see how this also might not affect models flying on any frequency, i.e. perhaps not interference at all. In that case, banning 35 is not going to make a great deal of difference, so from the point of view of perhaps not choosing to recognise the true fault, and I think anyone would admit that Phil’s OP does tend to put some emphasis on that, that this might be the more dangerous move.

If I were a member I think I would ask if the club might care to overall it’s procedures!

Having said all that, it seems the club itself is not too concerned anyway, and when everyone’s on 2.4 it will all soon be forgotten anyway. So it’s something of a storm in a teacup, perhaps?

PB

[Erfolg]

Andy

 

I have been on the BMFA web site to look for the "Constitution Template", as yet I have not been able to find it.

 

Unfortunately it is not the slickest of web sites. I am not even convinced it is has a structure, be it a tree, expert system, that is user friendly. I know this is another issue. Can you point me to the section?

 

I do think a number of the recent points, have been very well made. Putting the situation into a very sharp perspective. Totally discrediting the "safety argument", without analysis, by logic. Very well done!

 

 

[Andy Symons]

Erfolg

 

I'm not aware that its on the website, however if you look at the list of available publications in the back of your handbook it is listed there and available from the office FOC.