Enforcement of model flying regulations

[Arthur Harris]

5 hours ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

It’s difficult to differentiate between an individual with a different viewpoint and someone deliberately trolling.  Unless there’s strong evidence of malicious intent we should respect people’s rights to express their opinions even if we disagree with them. 
 

Perhaps there comes a time though to accept that one’s views are at odds with general - and experienced/informed - opinion and realise that there is little point in continuing to push them - it only muddies the waters and dilutes the very points being projected. This doesn’t disbar reasoned argument of course. 
 

I'm not trolling. I genuinely believe there is a majority of model fliers who enjoy the social aspect of the club, enjoy building (I don't personally), and enjoy flying and learning new skills). There is also the fun of encouraging new members and seeing them improve their skills. For many of us, rc flying is something we have always thought about and have only had the leisure to pursue after retirement (I fall into that category, I'm 68 years old).

I am concerned about the way things are going with regard to CAA legislation, and I also really do think that it is unfair on us moderate, sport/weekend fliers who just want to pootle about and improve our skills.

And I also think there are dedicated model fliers who fly drones, high-flying sailplanes, and turbine models who will spoil it for us, the quiet majority.

If anyone thinks this viewpoint is trolling, fair enough. I said in one of my first posts I belong to the category of club members who probably don't achieve much except personal satisfaction. (I also said, perhaps in a clumsy way, that we all would like to achieve more than a few circuits, rolls and loops, but we also know that landing in one piece is more important!).

Don't forget, learning new skills in retirement is not the same as learning when you are younger- reflexes are slower and eyesight is poorer!).

I may be in a minority on this forum, but I am not convinced I am in a minority in the country.

 

 

[Arthur Harris]

7 hours ago, Tim Kearsley said:

Honestly, I haven't read such drivel for a long time.  So flying a thermal glider isn't model flying by your definition?  What do you think the "end" is in riding a thermal to great height, other than the enjoyment and challenge of doing so?  My Super Ava 3.7m span glider is perfectly visible, and therefore under full control, at heights in excess of 1,500 feet.  Just because your misguided view is that model flying only consists of flying small electric models in circles a few hundred feet away doesn't mean it's right.

Well, I'm wrong, but more in the way I expressed myself. (Decades ago I saw a book by George Stringwell, called "Thermal Soaring"). Of course it is model flying. I think I am reacting to proposed CAA action, which is getting more punitive. It is my view (I may well be mistaken) that people flying EP models of modest weight in close proximity to a flying field are being caught up in an argument between the BMFA and the CAA over model aircraft which may intrude on commercial airspace- when our modest small planes don't.

Edited December 23, 2023 by Arthur Harris

[Simon Chaddock]

In some respects I have to agree with AH's point.

The CAA is responding to the risk (perceived or otherwise) that RC or free flight model flying poses.

It follows that the greater the number of UAVs, the bigger the area they operate in and their size and weight then the risk to others is increased.

It was after all the huge popularity cheap readily available drones that peaked the interest of the CAA in the first place. Prior to that the CAA had taken a rather "hands off approach" to conventional model flying.

Unfortunately the addition of FPV to aerial vehicles has greatly increased both amateur, commercial and military interest with a physical area coverage that would have been unthinkable 30 years ago combined with a dramatic increase in commercial flying. 

Whether a "consultation" is just a procedural necessity is open to debate but there no doubt that "risk reducing rules" for UAV flying will have to be put in place.

What we used to be able to do quite freely is no longer an option.

 

[Peter Jenkins]

1 hour ago, Arthur Harris said:

Well, I'm wrong, but more in the way I expressed myself. (Decades ago I saw a book by George Stringwell, called "Thermal Soaring"). Of course it is model flying. I think I am reacting to proposed CAA action, which is getting more punitive. It is my view (I may well be mistaken) that people flying EP models of modest weight in close proximity to a flying field are being caught up in an argument between the BMFA and the CAA over model aircraft which may intrude on commercial airspace- when our modest small planes don't.

Arthur

 

I think you have a lot of misunderstanding about aeromodelling.  Your understanding of what the BMFA does is so far off the mark as to be comical.

 

You seem not to understand that, unlike common land, there is no such thing as common air.  You do not own the air above your house  - the Government does.

 

Furthermore, drones, or UAS, are not a recent invention.  The last company I worked for before retiring, had a drone system that was designed for the Military that could be controlled just by providing way points.  It was fitted with a camera and flight control system that provided photo intel to the soldier.  This was back in 1998.  Since then, as multi-rotors have taken on some fixed wing roles, the usage extends to: monitoring crop health; transmission line inspection; emergency service assistance; structural inspection; environmental monitoring and surveys; professional film making and many other tasks.  Some of these activities hsve been performed using manned aircraft which greatly increases the cost of the activity.  In some  cases, the military has been in the forefront of paying for the development of techniques plus the hardware/software to execute these tasks.

A more recent innovation is to use autonomous air taxies and there is a company called Lillium that is developing such a craft.  

I do not know how things are going to pan out but I do know that providing the Government with our views is a good way of safeguarding our sport/hobby.  You will note there are many more potential users than the ones you focus on.  You will have seen the way that commercial drones are being used in todays wars and since they are so much cheaper than using  traditional manned aircraft to do the task. The military view is to use UAS to do dull, dirty and/or dangerous work.

All of the above would require both the airspace both below and above 500 ft to be managed in a different way.  Why?  There is no see and avoid function that has yet been devised yet.that will allow an unmanned aircraft.to operate safely with manned aircraft.

 

The camera drone devotees are just one of many who have a need to use drones to help them either to reduce the costs to their business or to offer a service to existing businesses that provide significant benefits.

 

Just saying you just want to fly park fliers in close proximity to you without let or hindrance shows you have not understood the bssic premise of what this whole exercise is about.  I also think you are wrong in saying your view represents the majority of radio control pilots.

 

Finally, don't dismiss those involved in competition.  They happen to be the people who step forward to help run the BMFA, argue our case to the Government and do a great deal of the organising that most folk don't see and, frankly, don't care about.

 

[GrumpyGnome]

8 hours ago, Arthur Harris said:

Well, I'm wrong, but more in the way I expressed myself. (Decades ago I saw a book by George Stringwell, called "Thermal Soaring"). Of course it is model flying. I think I am reacting to proposed CAA action, which is getting more punitive. It is my view (I may well be mistaken) that people flying EP models of modest weight in close proximity to a flying field are being caught up in an argument between the BMFA and the CAA over model aircraft which may intrude on commercial airspace- when our modest small planes don't.

 

So we can properly explore your proposal.........

 

What do you define as a "..... modest small plane..."?

What is your definition of 'modest weight'?

When you are talking about ' close proximity' to a 'flying field'...... what do you define as 'close'? What do you define as a 'flying field'?

Do you have further parameters on, say, performance?  

When swathes of people leave the hobby because their interests are outside your limited parameters, what will happen to the BMFA who support the hobby so well? Who will the CAA talk to then?

What will happen to all the clubs that are no longer viable?

What do you think will happen to the retail market when it can only sell within such limited parameters?

If the clubs and designated flying fields no longer exist, where will you fly? Parks which are probably more in the flight path of air taxis and delivery drones than the designated flying fields that used to be run by clubs?

Etc.

Etc.

Edited December 24, 2023 by GrumpyGnome

[Learner]

5 minutes ago, GrumpyGnome said:

 

So we can properly explore your proposal.........

 

What do you define as a "..... modest small plane..."?

What is your definition of 'modest weight'?

When you are talking about ' close proximity' to a 'flying field'...... what do you define as 'close'? What do you define as a 'flying field'?

Do you have further parameters on, say, performance?  

When swathes of people leave the hobby because their interests are outside your limited parameters, what will happen to the BMFA who support the hobby so well? Who will the CAA talk to then?

What will happen to all the clubs that are no longer viable?

What do you think will happen to the retail market when it can only sell within such limited parameters?

If the clubs and designated flying fields no longer exist, where will you fly? Parks which are probably more in the flight path of air taxis and delivery drones than the designated flying fields that used to be run by clubs?

Etc.

Etc.

I think if you find out what plane he flies and where, that will be the exact parameters he'd set.

[GrumpyGnome]

According to earlier posts, Arthur flies a Riot, which seemingly gets repaired a lot, and replaced another Riot.  So, we know what he considers 'small'......... well above the defacto small limit of 250g, and certainly not a park flyer. So, jf wingspan is the defining parameter, this could include all manner of aircraft which are unsuitable for flying outside a club site, due to the amount of energy they carry.  Examples are pylon racers, edf, Goblin-type planes, helicopters, hotliners, etc. etc..

 

So, designated flying sites away from the public are needed. Limiting the choice of aircraft to similar sized electric planes would probably result in my club ceasing to exist immediately. Whilst not knowing what the majority of UK club members think, I suspect we wouldn't be the only one.  

 

Whether or not Arthur belongs to a club is debatable based on posting history. 

[Learner]

42 minutes ago, GrumpyGnome said:

According to earlier posts, Arthur flies a Riot, which seemingly gets repaired a lot, and replaced another Riot.  So, we know what he considers 'small'......... well above the defacto small limit of 250g, and certainly not a park flyer. So, jf wingspan is the defining parameter, this could include all manner of aircraft which are unsuitable for flying outside a club site, due to the amount of energy they carry.  Examples are pylon racers, edf, Goblin-type planes, helicopters, hotliners, etc. etc..

 

So, designated flying sites away from the public are needed. Limiting the choice of aircraft to similar sized electric planes would probably result in my club ceasing to exist immediately. Whilst not knowing what the majority of UK club members think, I suspect we wouldn't be the only one.  

 

Whether or not Arthur belongs to a club is debatable based on posting history. 

We don't allow riots at our club, their 1 inch over our max span rule!

Edited December 24, 2023 by Learner

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

For the unbelievers who fly at 1.000 feet, the French réglementation 'before' all the laws for aerobatics was 170 metres,,

 

  En F3A, outdoor : Le cadre de présentation est limité à 60° degrés dans le plan vertical et à 120 degrés dans le plan horizontale (60° de part et d’autre de l’axe principal) Le pilote lors du décollage choisit son niveau de vol inférieur et sa profondeur d’évolution (comprise entre 140 et 170 m) Il doit conserver ses axes durant tout son programme.

 

 translation, maximum 140m/170m.😜

[GaryW]

As well as flying Planes of various type and size,, 3 Helicopters all of different size, 250, 325 & .32 glow, ( Twister Ninja, Mini Titan & Shuttle ) I will go out on a limb here to say I don't fly Drones/UAV's/UAS's ,,,, but I do fly 2 Balde 350 QX3 " Quadcopters " ( As confirmed by the boxes ) one of which has the full AP Camera Gimbal setup and the other is what I call my everyday flier Quad which I fly around in the same manner that I fly my helicopters whihc in a way you can say they are both 4 bladed heli's.......

 

Now I wonder how many sets of different parameters Arthur can let my know that I'm flying that lot by

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 24, 2023 by GaryWebb

[Don Fry]

Lads, you’re being cruel, like a cat with a caught mouse. 

[Shaun Walsh]

26 minutes ago, Learner said:

We don't allow riots at our club, their 1 inch over our max span rule!

Craft knife and a ruler, sorted!

[Learner]

11 minutes ago, Shaun Walsh said:

Craft knife and a ruler, sorted!

Thanks, which side is best to cut the inch off

[FlyinFlynn]

I think Arthur laments the 'decision' to lump all model flying into one category, that is all. I, for one, can see his point but seeing as that particular ship sailed long ago there is little to be gained by pursuing it. I suggest you stop personally attacking him as he has a right to his opinion and all this (somewhat normal) sniping at him  is un-becoming.

[Learner]

17 minutes ago, FlyinFlynn said:

I think Arthur laments the 'decision' to lump all model flying into one category, that is all. I, for one, can see his point but seeing as that particular ship sailed long ago there is little to be gained by pursuing it. I suggest you stop personally attacking him as he has a right to his opinion and all this (somewhat normal) sniping at him  is un-becoming.

I am glad you can see his point. As I'm allowed an opinion, you are both wrong!

Edited December 24, 2023 by Learner

[GrumpyGnome]

Either:

 

a) it's trolling, OR

b) it's an honest opinion, so it's up for debate.

 

I'm not attacking Arthur, I'm challenging his opinions and proposals. 

[leccyflyer]

47 minutes ago, FlyinFlynn said:

I think Arthur laments the 'decision' to lump all model flying into one category, that is all. I, for one, can see his point but seeing as that particular ship sailed long ago there is little to be gained by pursuing it. I suggest you stop personally attacking him as he has a right to his opinion and all this (somewhat normal) sniping at him  is un-becoming.

Fundamentally though, the distinction that he is attempting to make, which would exclude lots of legitimate model flying activity and limit model flying to a small sunset of "modest" electric powered models flown at a registered club site is so blinkered and short-sighted as to be positively dangerous as a proposal. Unfortunately it's been a trait of a small minority to express that, essentially, anything that does not cover exactly what they do is fair game for restriction.

 

The decision to lump all model flying together with non-model flying was unfortunate and the point of noting that is to identify mistakes that have been made in the past, so as not to repeat them. Drones are not model aircraft and should never have been lumped together with model aircraft. The bogus statement that it is not possible to make a distinguishing definition ignores entirely the clear blue water between an aerial platform flown by FPV and a model aircraft which is flown remotely, within visual LOS could not be more clear.

[Shaun Walsh]

1 hour ago, Learner said:

Thanks, which side is best to cut the inch off

Depends whether you prefer to fly left hand or right hand circuits!

[Peter Jenkins]

1 hour ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

For the unbelievers who fly at 1.000 feet, the French réglementation 'before' all the laws for aerobatics was 170 metres,,

 

  En F3A, outdoor : Le cadre de présentation est limité à 60° degrés dans le plan vertical et à 120 degrés dans le plan horizontale (60° de part et d’autre de l’axe principal) Le pilote lors du décollage choisit son niveau de vol inférieur et sa profondeur d’évolution (comprise entre 140 et 170 m) Il doit conserver ses axes durant tout son programme.

 

 translation, maximum 140m/170m.😜

Well, that is pretty much the FAI rule.  The 140/170 m refers to how far out you fly.  The norm is 150 m out.  The rule you quote gives the top of the box at 60 deg to the horizontal and 120 deg wide or 60 deg either side of centre.  60 deg to the horizontal @ 150 m = 853 ft.  In practice, many internagiknal pilots fly a bit further out at 170 m it is 966 ft.

 

Since the AUW of the a/c is, in 2024, going to be 5,500 g (IC  a/c with fuel this time and electric aircraft with the flight pack) in the UK there is no height limit provided you are not in controlled airspace and maintain unaided visual contact with the aircraft.  A 2 m aircraft is very visible even at the edges of the box and 1,000 ft high.

 

Have you heard of Christophe Paysant Le-Roux?  Since he and other French F3A pilots have been very successfully using those parameters (in the last 20 years CPLR was World Chsmpion 9 times and runner up once.  Do you seriously think a French Government would legislate against such success?

[Eric Robson]

Our club had a drone flyer join during the easing of covid restrictions, after a year he did not renew as his house backed on to a field and he could not see the sense of paying over £100 to fly over our field.

[Dickw]

2 hours ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

For the unbelievers who fly at 1.000 feet, the French réglementation 'before' all the laws for aerobatics was 170 metres,,

 

  En F3A, outdoor : Le cadre de présentation est limité à 60° degrés dans le plan vertical et à 120 degrés dans le plan horizontale (60° de part et d’autre de l’axe principal) Le pilote lors du décollage choisit son niveau de vol inférieur et sa profondeur d’évolution (comprise entre 140 et 170 m) Il doit conserver ses axes durant tout son programme.

 

 translation, maximum 140m/170m.😜

I understand that to mean the pilot does his manoeuvres along a line at between 140 and 170m away from himself, which at 60° vertical gives a max altitude of just over 960 feet.

Nothing to do with enforcing CAA regulations, but if we don't even understand our own rules we do have a problem 😀

 

Dick

ps Peter beat me to it.

Edited December 24, 2023 by Dickw

[David Elam]

12 hours ago, Arthur Harris said:

I'm not trolling. I genuinely believe there is a majority of model fliers who enjoy the social aspect of the club, enjoy building (I don't personally), and enjoy flying and learning new skills). There is also the fun of encouraging new members and seeing them improve their skills. For many of us, rc flying is something we have always thought about and have only had the leisure to pursue after retirement (I fall into that category, I'm 68 years old).

I am concerned about the way things are going with regard to CAA legislation, and I also really do think that it is unfair on us moderate, sport/weekend fliers who just want to pootle about and improve our skills.

And I also think there are dedicated model fliers who fly drones, high-flying sailplanes, and turbine models who will spoil it for us, the quiet majority.

If anyone thinks this viewpoint is trolling, fair enough. I said in one of my first posts I belong to the category of club members who probably don't achieve much except personal satisfaction. (I also said, perhaps in a clumsy way, that we all would like to achieve more than a few circuits, rolls and loops, but we also know that landing in one piece is more important!).

Don't forget, learning new skills in retirement is not the same as learning when you are younger- reflexes are slower and eyesight is poorer!).

I may be in a minority on this forum, but I am not convinced I am in a minority in the country.

 

 

After reading both this and your previous comments I actually wish you HAD been trolling.

You are effectively saying you'd be prepared to throw those who partake in model flying activities that you don't approve of under the bus just as long as the CAA will allow you to keep flying your foam Riot.

Yes, model flying is a great hobby for retirees like yourself but in my personal case I've been flying since I was 15 and I'm now 63 so you'll excuse me in saying that I've invested quite a lot more time, dedication and money into the hobby than you. And the fact that you seem quite willing to let the CAA stop my continued enjoyment of some of the aspects of the hobby I love leaves me, and clearly others, pretty annoyed and angry.

Edited December 24, 2023 by David Elam

[gangster]

On 12/12/2023 at 07:48, Ron Gray said:

Playing Devil’s Advocate 

 

Manned and UAS with the right equipment (UAT) will be able to ‘see’ UAS thus be able to avoid them.

 

Not necessarily, the equipment could be swapped between models in the same way that Rx can.

 

 

Swap RX, that takes us back 40 years to when receivers cost so much we only had one or two

[Simon Chaddock]

Whilst "debating an opinion" may be satisfying I do wonder if it will make any difference to the CAA's final decision.😉

 

It is perfectly possible to see a 6ft span plane like this above 1000'

 

On a clear December day 10 years ago I flew it to 1565 ft with a recording altimeter on board. Note several minutes were spent above 1000'.

Not much of that particular flight was below 400' either!

Questionably within the rules then definitely not now. 

Like it or not times are changing.

 

 

 

[PeterF]

13 hours ago, Arthur Harris said:

I'm not trolling. I genuinely believe there is a majority of model fliers who enjoy the social aspect of the club, enjoy building (I don't personally), and enjoy flying and learning new skills). There is also the fun of encouraging new members and seeing them improve their skills. For many of us, rc flying is something we have always thought about and have only had the leisure to pursue after retirement (I fall into that category, I'm 68 years old).

I am concerned about the way things are going with regard to CAA legislation, and I also really do think that it is unfair on us moderate, sport/weekend fliers who just want to pootle about and improve our skills.

And I also think there are dedicated model fliers who fly drones, high-flying sailplanes, and turbine models who will spoil it for us, the quiet majority.

If anyone thinks this viewpoint is trolling, fair enough. I said in one of my first posts I belong to the category of club members who probably don't achieve much except personal satisfaction. (I also said, perhaps in a clumsy way, that we all would like to achieve more than a few circuits, rolls and loops, but we also know that landing in one piece is more important!).

Don't forget, learning new skills in retirement is not the same as learning when you are younger- reflexes are slower and eyesight is poorer!).

I may be in a minority on this forum, but I am not convinced I am in a minority in the country.

 

 

Being happy with park flying is not something that exists in a majority of modellers in the club I fly at. Being limited to a 50" span 400Watt foamy flown within a 150m bubble from take off point would offer no challenge and little enjoyment to many of us.

 

What is all this almost defeatist attitude to learning and developing new skills in retirement. I am retired and in my 60s and since retiring I have taken my B test, Club Examiner test and just been taken on as a Chief Examiner by my area. I have built and maidened my largest plane to date, a 25lb 7ft span EDF Vulcan and several other larger scale models, tried thermal soaring taking my 12ft span glider to >2000ft. My flying skills have never been better and I started flying in my 30s.

Edited December 24, 2023 by PeterF