Horizon Hobby Sport Cub S 2 ( amazing little piece of kit )

[Philip Lewis 3]

Don't worry Toto I was just taking the Mickey, never heard of someone joining the LMA right at the start but can't think of a good reason not to either if that's what you want to do.

 

Just put your number on it and go fly it, as Matty says you don't have to have insurance (although desirable) or have to have anything else for that matter. 

[MattyB]

4 minutes ago, toto said:

Thanks Matty,

 

I actually have article 16 printed off and in the " hand book " that I have started to assemble for myself. Believe it or not, I have read it but I must admit, at the time was reading so much. I may have interpreted it incorrectly.

 

I will return and re-aquaint myself with it again and probably often from time to time as you tend to need to refresh your understanding now and again.

 

 

OK, good stuff. Some history that may help...

 

When the last set of legislation was originally proposed, it was immediately clear that huge numbers of existing flying sites would become illegal to fly due to their proximity to other buildings, recreational faciities, etc.  As a result the national asociations campaigned and were successful in getting the possibility of exceptions written in for their members, but those exemptions (whilst effective) have to be renewed annually, and can be rescinded at any time by the CAA.

 

As a result flyers who are reliant on Article 16 to continue to operate are understandably keen to make sure that everyone understands the rules and complies with them, as it will only take one slip up and many clubs could be left without flying sites. This happened recently in Canada due to their national association messing up, and the same could happen here easily if we as users or the national associations are seen to be playing fast and loose (though the BMFA, LAM and SAA all have far better relationships with the CAA than MAAC do with the Canadian regulator). 

[paul devereux]

4 hours ago, toto said:

Just checked the weight ...... 1023g and that's with the supplied 3s battery.

 

A little outside the 750g which I was under the impression was a threshold for unattended flying. As has been said earlier in the thread though, I think I may have misinterpreted it a bit. This figure is about registering for an operators license.

 

I need to check 5o make sure that I stay on the 4ight side of things.

 

Cheers

 

 

Toto

Hi toto, don't be misled.

That little sub-250gm plane you flew solo, and the little HZ Cub I have, are classed as toys. They are exempt from CAA regulations.

You don't need any special documentation or pass any requirements, any more than you would if you were a child with a r/c car or a child with a kite.

Obviously you need to use common sense, a r/c buggy could cause an accident if it was used on a public road, and a kite could break a string and fly onto a road or the string could get tangled around someone, but we could also trip over a untied shoe lace and crack our heads.

I posted somewhere else the rules required by our parks and rec for public flying, but they boil down to: avoid disturbing nature reserves, avoid people, keep it under control, and stop if the police or a warden asks you to.

It's only with the larger models and drones that the rules kick in. And even they are common sense: you need insurance (for your own peace of mind anyway), and for the insurance to be valid you need to comply with CAA regs (basically pass the online test, get your ID, label your plane, and fly where you are legally permitted to- which does exclude most public parks).

From what I've read, you've done well so far- I think your club let you down initially with training, but you seem to be good with the small plane you've soloed.

Don't let the gloomsters get you down. Here's the CAA guidance:*the_drone_code.pdf (caa.co.uk)

 

Edited May 23, 2023 by paul devereux

[Outrunner]

But, if your sub 250g model has a camera in them it falls under the regulations......

[paul devereux]

3 minutes ago, Outrunner said:

But, if your sub 250g model has a camera in them it falls under the regulations......

True, but it hasn't. I think the CAA wanted to cover drones particularly, even nano drones which could be used in criminal activities. I'm talking about the  general hobby/toy stuff freely available. In any case, the CAA missed the mark with the legislation, all they have done is penalised responsible operators like clubs - as was widely predicted. 

[Lima Hotel Foxtrot]

13 hours ago, paul devereux said:

I think your club let you down initially with training, but you seem to be good with the small plane you've soloed.

Don't let the gloomsters get you down. Here's the CAA guidance:*the_drone_code.pdf (caa.co.uk)

 

There is a definite tendency within clubs for the club tutors (if a club has them), examiners and committee to interpret and apply the rules as they think what the rules should be as opposed to what the rules actually state.

 

God knows why. I think it's because the sort of mindset that wants to be on a committee likes to impose their interpreted version of the rules, and somehow it becomes entangled with the idea that - as a model flyer - they are being oppressed by the powers that be, and so go to extreme lengths to make this actually happen in the club. Psychologically it's quite fascinating and I tie it into an aging hobby membership stuck on the concept of "When I was young things were better..." It's also infuriating and does nobody any favours because Chinese Whispers creeps in as club members witter at each other at the field, and then online read/regurgitate what has now mutated into cobblers to other similarly downtrodden hobbyists and - more damagingly - the general public.

 

I say this as a club chairman who has had to stamp on this before it causes issues more than once.

[MattyB]

1 hour ago, Lima Hotel Foxtrot said:

There is a definite tendency within clubs for the club tutors (if a club has them), examiners and committee to interpret and apply the rules as they think what the rules should be as opposed to what the rules actually state.

 

There is a fair bit of that going on in this very thread tbh by certain posters... As you say, if people simply read the CAA materials and (if they wish to fly under one) the relevent Article 16 authorisation things would be a lot simpler. Instead we get lots of post with personal interpretations of the legislation presented as facts which are likely to  confuse others.