Future of Free Flight?

[Monz]

Posted by kc on 16/03/2016 16:10:22:

Anyone who visits one of the model meetings at Old Warden and wanders down from the RC flighline into the free flight area will see for themselves the complete disregard for safety of the free flight brigade. They launch power models right at face level amongst people with no regard for safety. The models are completly out of control as are the modellers. No wonder the authorities are taking action.

But even though free flight is a tiny minority of BMFA members the influence of free flight people seems to dominate BMFA thinking. Take any issue of BMFA News and see for yourself. This months ( todays ) isssue is typical.

The BMFA needs to recognise that it's RC that predominates and pays their BMFA membership fees.

At OW the past few years we have had the odd idiot launching as you say, but they have been taken to task very quickly (by BMFA committee members no less) and if found to continue, asked to leave. Others who are seen to be endangering the rest are also taken aside for a quiet word.

To say the models are completely out of control puts into perspective exactly how little you know about the art of free flight. We spend many many hours building and then trimming our models to fly predictably. The majority of RC flyers whose latest RTF went in? Oh, blame it on the equipment. Nevermind your (sic generalisation) complete lack knowledge of aeromodelling or why they fly the way they do.

OW and other FF events are very well organised. The only reason the authorities would have to take action is the complete madness at the RC nats where IDIOTS with UNTRIMMED models launch AT FACE LEVEL WITH NO REGARD FOR SAFETY. And when these people (mostly RC flyers) are asked to behave, the marshals are sworn at. Have a look at the numerous videos on Youtube of just that. And you wonder why the RAF are suddenly so risk averse?? 

Further, yes, the FF community's influence is huge for it's size. That's because PEOPLE ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTE CONTENT a bit more substantial than "oooh here's my latest foam PnP assembly"... Want to see a difference? Build something, write about it, SUBMIT IT!

 

Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 16/03/2016 22:37:13

[Pete B]

Calm down, folks - we can express our views without resorting to bad language and veiled threats - play nicely now!

Pete

[Doug Campbell]

Well said Monz.

Why can't we all respect each others disciplines without trying to stick the knife in. If you looked at every aspect of our hobby you could find some justifiable concern. The difference is the free flight community has recognised the need to change and is doing something about it. Well done chaps.

 

Doug

Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 17/03/2016 13:11:12

[Robin Colbourne]

Posted by Erfolg on 16/03/2016 18:25:38:

Yet it was BEB that set alarm bells ringing, when he pointed out, that even childs toys fall into the remit of this set of regulations.

The trouble is for very small models, the minimal weight (increase) is not always welcomed.

My interpretation was that models under 1.25 metres (49" ) span and 250 grammes (10oz) weight are excluded from the requirements. This covers a lot of rubber and glider free flight models, and most Ebenezer type sport power models.

Having seen free flight competition models go in under power on trimming flights, the idea of being able to control them whilst trimming and to guide them away from trouble once the qualifying part of the flight is completed is only sensible now the technology exists.

Unfortunately, international committees with delegates from countries in which noise and airfield boundaries are not a problem have hampered progress in coming up with solutions to these issues. Free flight modelling in the UK has suffered as a result.

I'm pretty sure that choice of wing sections (or flaps) and elevators which give free flight models an element of into wind performance will be seen in future.

If you've not flown free flight, you probably won't appreciate the sense of achievement that a flight with a well trimmed model can give. Using available technology to prevent loss or danger from the model at the end of its flight is only logical now that it can be done.

 

Edited By Robin Colbourne on 17/03/2016 10:33:34

[kc]

Well perhaps the moderators should do something about the people who have just insulted me. I reported the facts and all they do is insult myself and criticise another forum member!

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I don't fly FF Robin, but I think I know what a well trimmed model is and do appreciate it radio guided or not

John

[Pete B]

Posted by kc on 17/03/2016 10:53:49:

Well perhaps the moderators should do something about the people who have just insulted me. I reported the facts and all they do is insult myself and criticise another forum member!

I have, kc - two posts have had undesirable comments removed. My attention was drawn to them by a report from a third party. I don't understand your second sentence - I haven't insulted you, have I?

I'd be very surprised if you didn't expect your post regarding OW to be challenged, by the way

Pete

[Doug Campbell]

I think the moderation is a bit heavy handed. My remarks where based on fact. One of the posters comments was so incorrect that it needed a robust response. The other poster whom I made comments about writes such long posts that I lose the will to live before I get to the end. I

If these posters are so sensitive perhaps they shouldn't post on a forum.

Doug

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Life would be less entertaining then Doug,

John

[Pete B]

I suggest you have a read of the forum Code of Conduct, Doug - there's a link at the bottom of each page.

This thread has been moderated in accordance with those principles.....

Pete

[PatMc]

Posted by kc on 17/03/2016 10:53:49:

Well perhaps the moderators should do something about the people who have just insulted me. I reported the facts and all they do is insult myself and criticise another forum member!

Well actually you didn't report facts, you expressed an opinion using a pejorative term to describe F/F modellers as a group.
I'm surprised you feel the need to complain.

[Erfolg]

Robin, where in the ANO are the the limits you refer to stated. Or perhaps they are contained in some other bit of legislation? It would certainly be useful to have such a category.

I know that exception has been taken to the observation, that some FF categories, do set the flight pattern to be low climb rate circles, and that there occasions where these flights take place where the space is not clear of people. I have observed this happening. I would hope rather than argue if there is evidence etc, we could agree that it is not desirable, if you believe it happens or not.

Our club flies from a field about half the size of Laws Farm. At present very few FF fly with us, as the field is deemed to small. I have raised the issue in the past could they not just restrict the duration, or use radio assist. There was no enthusiasm for such practises, preferring to travel about 20 mile round trip and pay £5 to fly. I think there are two aspects to the problem (as I see it), the first is that our FF modellers are all competitors, who trim and time for maxes. The second is the harder one to crack, is that at the alternative venue they meet up with all their mates, from other clubs, particularly as each year our FF members reduce, due to deaths (this is also effecting the RC part, although we have gained other well established modellers). The use of field limiting ideas as discussed would help our club, making our field more attractive. Not only that, we could perhaps run comps again for the FF section. Finally I see the proposals as a good means of improving safety.

I hope I have not incurred any ones wroth again.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Erfolg on 18/03/2016 09:49:22:

Robin, where in the ANO are the the limits you refer to stated. Or perhaps they are contained in some other bit of legislation? It would certainly be useful to have such a category.

I believe you are correct Erf - I am certainly not aware of any exemption under the ANO for aircraft below a certain wingspan/weight. It is true that in some respect there are slightly different regulations at different weight bands - but the division points for that are 7Kg, 20Kg and 150Kg, far more that is being discussed here. Anyway they are in the main slightly different regulations, not exemption from regulation.

BEB

[Erfolg]

I do believe that a low weight category would be useful. In my opinion, so that childrens flying toys would be excepted, just to allow children to have harmless fun, also for common sense reasons, for small FF models and very lightweight RC models.

From reading the newspapers it appears that a contract has been placed to investigate the potential effects of  impact of model aircraft with their larger cousins. This could be related to quantative evidence assessments with respect to the ANO. Who knows?

I do admit, that I find a paradox when discussing RC assist, with my car sharing partner, a well known FF, when discussing this area. Many of the FF demonstrate a willingness to innovate by converting a childs toys into timers and rudder mechanisms, they also readily spend quite a lot for mechanical timers specifically for models, even programmable electronic timers. Yet there is a reluctance to RC, interventions, to prevent lost models and particularly confine the model within a area.

I do understand the reservations with respect to the smaller classes of models, in that their is potentially extra weight. I also get, that much of the world does not have the population and flying areas restrictions of particularly England. An example is Germany with much less than half the UK level, not even England. The issue here being that many of the International Governing bodies, see no problem, so why change competition rules, that is from what I have been told. My idea was around making such features as mandatory, or requiring a minimum dead weight to be carried, representing the BMFA suggested devices.

As a RC flier I have an opinion, although my FF counterpart is the one who speaks for the FF members.

Edited By Erfolg on 18/03/2016 11:56:16

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Yes, I have some sympathy with the point of view that perhaps there could be a weight limit below which the ANO would not apply. The problem is that the primary interest of the CAA (authors of the ANO) is in minimising the dangers associated with collisions. With model aircraft (R/C or FF) their concern is always with "fly away" and the model becoming a loose collision hazard. Obviously from their point of view that is an even greater potential concern with FF than with R/C. I'm not saying that FF is necessarily a bigger hazard - but I am saying you can understand why CAA might see it that way.

But the key element here has always to be the likely energy involved in any collision. If we had a weight limit for certain arircraft of, say 200g, then its less likely that such an object would contribute sufficient energy to a collision with another (probably very much larger) aircraft to have significant risk of serious damage to the later. This would especially be the case if that 200g mass was distributed with low density, ie over a relative large area and not in a concentrated high density "lump". This would be the case with a model aeroplane of course which if you think in terms of trad build are mainly "fresh air"! But it can't be denied that the risk of serious damage from such a low density, low mass, object whilst low, is not zero! And so CAA will always be likely to err on the side of caution and leave the regs as they are I'm afraid.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 18/03/2016 12:47:52

[Robin Colbourne]

Erflog & BEB, My mistake; it was in the proposals in the third document in the list. "BMFA Freeflight tech committee news. Issue 78"

**LINK**

 

"SUGGESTED IDEAS FOR 2017 – FOR COMMENTS

Radio dethermalisers (RDT)

The requirement has been linked to the classes plus a catch all.
All “F” classes – A, B, C, E, G, H, J, P, Q

BMFA glider, rubber, power and electric

Combined glider, rubber, power and electric 

In addition any models weighing over 250grammes or 1.25metres wingspan "

 

It seems a pretty sensible proposal, as competition and larger sport models which are likely to go up in thermals (and cause problems for the event organisers) are included, whereas models with more brick-like glide characteristics such as Ebenezers and Sleek Streeks would be exempt. Do we really want to be prevented from flying these at competition sites as they don't have a radio dethermaliser?

   People flew free flight in its heyday because radio control didn't exist or was unaffordable.  Now that is no longer the case, its time to move on and accept that high performance free-flight models are an anachronism and if they are to be flown, it should be with consideration for other air users and people on the ground.

Edited By Robin Colbourne on 18/03/2016 17:26:30

[Erfolg]

Robin, in principal I would be surprised if any on this site would be opposed.

In my case, with one granddaughter that flies a Multiplex Fox extensively and a few other similar types, I am totally in favour. Particularly as it was a small Gunther catapult glider that started me along the road to being an aeromodeller. I suspect it is also true in principal for many of us.

The concept seems just to sensible.

Do these small models come without risk, defiantly not, although I would guess that the occurence of any form of incident is less than one in a million, for those who like to numercially evaluate risk.

Yet with regard to the higher performing and often much robust FF models, I do think the proposition made by the BMFA Technical Committee is a step in the right direction.

Edited By Erfolg on 18/03/2016 17:35:00

[kc]

It is reasonable to assume that very light planes present very little risk of damage - our own experience tells us that. However the authorities including BALPA seem to be worried about drones (or any models) coming into contact with airliners and they have not specified the size of drones that have already come close to airliners. They may have been really tiny drones and very lightweight. So presumably the CAA will legislate for any size or weight - unless BMFA convinces them otherwise.

But in this day and age when stray models including drones may well get all model flying restricted is it acceptable to fly free flight power models? Free flight models without any RC are completly out of the owners control once they are launched. Modern RC is so lightweight and cheap that there is no acceptable excuse for not fitting RC if it's necessary to comply with CAA regulations.

If anybody is thinking of arguing that free flight is actually under control because they are so expert at trimming then perhaps read page 11 of this months BMFA News. There it states that in the World Free Flight Championship one competitor managed to hit a power line several kilometers away. Even in the wilds of Mongolia!

 

Edited By kc on 18/03/2016 17:50:45

[Cuban8]

What a great model the old Sleek Streek was. Not exactly cheap in the mid 1960s when I was a lad - about 1/3d or half a week's pocket money IIRC. But they did fly and didn't require a lot of an eight year old's skill to perform.

Wasn't there a bigger version that sold for half a crown or so?

Never did figure out what the 'Oregon' was that you were  supposed to bend on all of NP's models.

Edited By Cuban8 on 18/03/2016 17:44:32

[John Lee]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 18/03/2016 12:45:41:

But it can't be denied that the risk of serious damage from such a low density, low mass, object whilst low, is not zero! And so CAA will always be likely to err on the side of caution and leave the regs as they are I'm afraid.

BEB

In fairness the CAA does not have a zero risk policy.

They summarise their policy as "We will target regulation where risk is highest and be adaptable to the ever-changing risk picture. We will act to develop confidence that industry players are managing their own risks effectively." See Risk Based Regulation in their Strategic Plan.

In General Aviation their safety decisions are made using the risk measurement criteria here and this associated matrix. I would hope and expect that the same policy principles are used for all forms of model flying.

[Erfolg]

John

Many who have worked in a small number of industries, know ther is no such thing as zero risk, exactly as you have stated.

On the other hand there are some, particularly in the conventional risk araenas, that find the concept hard to accept.

I am absolutely certain that the CAA model risk mathematically. Yet at the same time they have to deal with those who measure risk almost emotionally. I did use these techniques myself, as a means of identifying and minimising risk. Yet when really trying to get a handle of the scale of a risk, the mathematical approach is the only way.

I suspect and hope that the CAA sponsored investigations do demonstrate that risks can be almost vanishing with small models.

I have also moved towards the position that the Balpa position is more about other issues than what is reported. Can a small £20 drone reach 1, 000 feet. Would anybody with a +£1,000 quad fly deliberately into the path of an airliner.

Yet the proposal from the BMFA, irrespective of these issues, could allow smaller fields to be used and also possibly be compliant with the ANO as they stand. The drone issue is something else

[Robin Colbourne]

Posted by Cuban8 on 18/03/2016 17:39:33:

What a great model the old Sleek Streek was. Not exactly cheap in the mid 1960s when I was a lad - about 1/3d or half a week's pocket money IIRC. But they did fly and didn't require a lot of an eight year old's skill to perform.

Wasn't there a bigger version that sold for half a crown or so?

Never did figure out what the 'Oregon' was that you were supposed to bend on all of NP's models.

Edited By Cuban8 on 18/03/2016 17:44:32

The bigger one may have been the Star Flyer. As you say Sleek Streeks were only for the well heeled. The likes of my brother and I had to make do with Astro Gnats, or a Skeeter if we were feeling particularly flushed!

There's a history of the company here: **LINK**

and more including a contribution from the daughter of the founder, Charles H. Cleveland, here: **LINK**

It says 'Oregon' on my chainsaw bar, but I can't bend it...

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by John Lee on 18/03/2016 17:42:53:

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 18/03/2016 12:45:41:

But it can't be denied that the risk of serious damage from such a low density, low mass, object whilst low, is not zero! And so CAA will always be likely to err on the side of caution and leave the regs as they are I'm afraid.

BEB

In fairness the CAA does not have a zero risk policy.

They summarise their policy as "We will target regulation where risk is highest and be adaptable to the ever-changing risk picture. We will act to develop confidence that industry players are managing their own risks effectively." See Risk Based Regulation in their Strategic Plan.

In General Aviation their safety decisions are made using the risk measurement criteria here and this associated matrix. I would hope and expect that the same policy principles are used for all forms of model flying.

I agree entirely John. But equally the level of risk they will accept is proportional to the perceived wider benefit. I suspect they see very little benefit to the wider aviation community in this case! Add in the fact that our FF colleagues are very small group within another small group (ie all model flyers) and you can see that the impetous on CAA to change anything in this particular respect is very small!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 18/03/2016 18:56:02

[Robin Colbourne]

BEB, the actual risk of a collision between a free flight model and a manned aircraft in flight must be infinitesimally small. Very, very few mid air collisions take place between unrelated* aircraft enroute in uncontrolled airspace. The only one​ which comes to mind is the Grob Tutor/glider collision (14/06/2009) and surrounding controlled airspace played a part in pushing them together. I would love to see the figures for the late 1940s through to the 1960s when the RAF had hundreds of aircraft**, and free-flight was at its peak.

I can understand RAF Station Commanders being concerned with models coming down and upsetting their neighbours, or landing on roads outside the station, but if the risk matrices that John Lee quoted were applied with mid-air collisions were the only concern, the maths would show this all this is a pointless exercise.

* This excludes gliders sharing a thermal

** The 1953 Coronation Review had 640 RAF aircraft in one flypast

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Again - I totally agree Robin - my only point is that while we may all agree that an exemption from the ANO for model aircraft below say 200g might be sensible - its very, very, unlikely to happen - because;

1. it isn't zero risk (OK its very low, but not zero)

2. Those that want it are a very small, and I'm afraid uninfluantial minority

These two combined effectively rule it out I fear - sensible as it may seem to most of us. Unless of course the BMFA were to formally apply for such an exemption by developing and submitting an OSC? If that happened the CAA would have to formally respond to such an application. If granted this would effectively create a precedent. Interesting thought?

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 18/03/2016 22:20:00