Park Flyer 'Definition'

[Andy Harris]

Dear Forum

I've put this little note together based on various threads, for example 'Learning to fly alone' and 'which field do you fly in etc'.  I've had a look around and found that the AMA have made a definition:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/parkflyer.aspx 

This seems about right to me, but the US has big parks! 

I believe there are some key questions:

1. As a local council I need to protect park users, where do I draw the line.

2. As a beginner when do I need BMFA membership.

3. As a beginner what constitutes a model big enough for an 'A'  test.

In the BMFA manual, I can find reference to park flyers, but not to a specifc size, weight or speed.

(1) above is a good example of why we need a definition, if someone was flying an 'Ember' or a 'Silverlit' round the local park, could anyone object?  would it need BMFA membership?.  Furthermore would this practice provoke a ban on all flying things?

If we extrapolate to a 1.4M electric trainer, we'd get different answers and outcomes, outcomes that significantly affect our hobby.

In (2) above I became aware of the BMFA just through their magazine advertising, before this I'd been messing about with a 730mm park flyer, not advertised as requiring BMFA membership or insurance to operate. The question becomes where is the line?

For (3) I can build a model of 500mm wingspan and 200grams with full Aileron,Rudder,Elevator, Throttle control.  Can I take the 'A' test with this? Where does it say I can't?  However sense tells us that this is just too small to grant a certificate that would allow me to fly a 7kg model. Conversely, what can I take an 'A' with? Consensus appears to be 2Kg, but where's the definition.

For these reasons I believe a proper definition is required, should we follow the AMA, or should the BMFA have a think on this and UK conditions.

What do our forumnites feel about the questions raised here?

Regards

Andy 

[Bruce Richards]

With regard to BMFA membership I think anytime you intend to fly consider the consequences of you model going flat out into a child's face. If in you opinion the child is likely to suffer injury then you should be insured and the easiest way to get insurance is to join the BMFA.

regarding model size for "A" test I think it is part of the examiners job to decide whether the model you present for the test is fit for purpose.

Things change too quickly for a definition to last for more than a year or two. If someone is responsible then they can work out what they should do without a definition. If someone is irresponsible then they will ignore any definition and do what they want anyway.

Just my view.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Rick Tee]

For the UK the name 'park flyer' seems to have been a misnomer as it's very unlikely anyone would be able to fly such in a 'park'. Certainly our local and county council have banned all flying on publicly accessible land they own, parks, greenbelts etc. Flying in these areas would probably invalidate your insurance. As for the National Parks, all powered flying is banned.

1/ I guess we need the BMFA to clarify the definition 'Park Flyer' at least for size/weight, atm i suppose it could apply to any model which uses a short range/indoor receiver and is powered by an electric motor. But that's a bit vague without a size/weight limit.

2/ BMFA membership, if you fly you need it or some other third party insurance. Even a chuck glider could potentially take someones eye out. Sadly we currently live it a blame/complain society where ppl have a tendency not to take responsibility for themselves or apply good (common) sense to their own or others activities, best protect yourself against a possible lawsuit.

3/ Hmm seems to be down to the examiner.

 Good questions which need to be put to the BMFA for clarification and definition.

[Andy Harris]

Quick tea break update:

The Americans are very proactive about this stuff, you can see the way they create active partnerships here:

http://www.modelaircraft.org/UserFiles/PPP-SiteBooklet.pdf 

I'm impressed with the way they treat the site owner. 

Rick:

We live in a world where you can't play conkers at school whereas cricket is allowed on virtually every village green (near roads, playgrounds etc).  A proper cricket ball hitting a child at speed is:

    a) far worse that a 200g foamy

    b) far more probable

    c) far less newsworthy
 

.. Andy 

[Rick Tee]

Crazy huh! I had been considering building a little foamy to fly evenings in our local park after i'd finished restocking the hanger, but our council in their infinite wisdom have decided building something on the park is more profitable than having somewhere for the kids to play and dug it up. I know, against the rules, probably uninsured, but if they keep restricting personal freedom law abiding citizens start ignoring the rules.

[Owen Hailey]

Hi all.

Am I to belive that this BMFA insurance would cover me in a nomal enviroment. I thought it was a club only thing as you must be flying under there rules. I my self like to fly in places were there are no people sanding watching me, if thay are about I fly away from them not over them I like to think I fly as safe as posible and do no put others at risk.

fly safe Owen. 

[David Ashby - Moderator]

That right Owen, I checked this with the BMFA recently and they said that you're insured for parks as long as you've taken all reasonable steps to ensure that it's safe to fly and haven't broken any obvious guidelines like flying over property etc..