Enforcement of model flying regulations

[leccyflyer]

2 minutes ago, PeterF said:

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.

The expressed attitude to learning and developing new skills is a strong indication that Arthur is actually trolling, since he previously poured scorn on those who are perfectly happy to fly a few circuits with an occasional roll and loop thrown in- essentially incompatible positions that look like they were posted just to wind people up.

[Ron Gray]

3 minutes ago, PeterF said:

flown within a 150m bubble from take off point would offer no challenge and little enjoyment to many of us.

I know that this is straying a bit off the topic but being able to fly a scale model of any size in a scale like manner requires a lot of skill, probably more so the smaller the models are. 

[Nick Cripps]

1 hour ago, Simon Chaddock said:

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

Questionably within the rules then definitely not now. 

 

Perfectly within the rules now if you are a member of one of the associations that has Article 16 authorisation from the CAA.

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

1 hour ago, Dickw said:

60° vertical gives a max altitude of just over 960 feet.

We are limited to 150 metres altitude, so what has all these different calculations have to do with flying models ?.

I am still at a loss on why you need to fly so that your toy is a spot in the sky, Most of my flying is under 50 metres altitude so I can actually see the plane, one exception is my 3.75m glider and I have flown it a couple of times over 150m  while in a thermal, but that's only to dive down for a beat up and a few aerobatics.

Edited December 24, 2023 by Paul De Tourtoulon
glider

[leccyflyer]

8 minutes ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

We are limited to 150 metres altitude, so what has all these different calculations have to do with flying models ?.

I am still at a loss on why you need to fly so that your toy is a spot in the sky, Most of my flying is under 50 metres altitude so I can actually see the plane, one exception is my 3.75m glider and I have flown it a couple of times over 150m  while in a thermal, but that's only to dive down for a beat up and a few aerobatics.

Oh my word, that makes it sound like you were not being sarcastic when you made that nonsense comment asking what the point was of flying higher than 150m. Sorry to have given you the benefit of the doubt and getting a bit fed up now of reading all this blinkered garbage from those who don't have any empathy for those enjoying the hobby in a slightly different format than that which they practice themselves.

[David Elam]

2 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

Oh my word, that makes it sound like you were not being sarcastic when you made that nonsense comment asking what the point was of flying higher than 150m. Sorry to have given you the benefit of the doubt and getting a bit fed up now of reading all this blinkered garbage from those who don't have any empathy for those enjoying the hobby in a slightly different format than that which they practice themselves.

Agree. The narrow-minded insularity of some fliers is amazing.

[Tim Kearsley]

9 minutes ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

We are limited to 150 metres altitude, so what has all these different calculations have to do with flying models ?.

I am still at a loss on why you need to fly so that your toy is a spot in the sky, Most of my flying is under 50 metres altitude so I can actually see the plane, one exception is my 3.75m glider and I have flown it a couple of times over 150m  while in a thermal, but that's only to dive down for a beat up and a few aerobatics.

I fly my gliders until they're a "spot in the sky" because I love the challenge of finding and hanging on to thermals as long as I can.  I only stop going higher when either I lose the lift or I no longer feel comfortable in adequately maintainng proper sight and control.  Perfectly within the rules and just another branch of our wonderful sport.

[steve too]

12 minutes ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

... Most of my flying is under 50 metres altitude so I can actually see the plane ...

 

How high do/did you fly the model in your profile picture?

 

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

10 minutes ago, leccyflyer said:

Oh my word, that makes it sound like you were not being sarcastic when you made that nonsense comment asking what the point was of flying higher than 150m. Sorry to have given you the benefit of the doubt and getting a bit fed up now of reading all this blinkered garbage from those who don't have any empathy for those enjoying the hobby in a slightly different format than that which they practice themselves.

Oh dear Another one upset by my remarks, the French law says 150m so I stick to it, especially as it's there for safety, we have Mirage 2000's and Rafales low fling in our area and the Hospitals EC 145 helicopter, not forgetting our club president is a Gendarme, and me responsible for safety.

 

 

so the laws are there to be broken ?.😨

 

 I am off, byeeee

 

Ps Steve less than 150m, it's is small also I like to fly it low enough to see the whites in the eyes of the pilots face.😂

Edited December 24, 2023 by Paul De Tourtoulon

[leccyflyer]

1 minute ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

Oh dear Another one upset by my remarks, the French law says 150m so I stick to it, especially as it's there for safety, we have Mirage 2000's and Rafales low fling in our area and the Hospitals EC 145 helicopter, not forgetting our club president is a Gendarme, and me responsible for safety.

 

 

so the laws are there to be broken ?.😨

 

 I am off, byeeee

 

Ps Steve less than 150m, it's is small also I like to fly it low enough to see the whites in the eyes of the pilots face.😂

QED - the discussion is not about flying in France. or the French regulations and staying within them. Furthermore the remark that I quoted was pretty clear, in that you couldn't see the point in flying above the 50m that you happen to prefer.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Give a man a fish, and feed him for a day.

Teach him to fish, and keepnets full in no time. 😉

[Simon Chaddock]

"Perfectly within the rules now if you are a member of one of the associations that has Article 16 authorisation from the CAA."

Yes but as you stated it could only take place within a location specific CAA granted "height rule" exemption.

There was no over arching model plane height rule when that flight took place, only the talk of one.

 

[MattyB]

7 hours ago, Simon Chaddock said:

"Perfectly within the rules now if you are a member of one of the associations that has Article 16 authorisation from the CAA."

Yes but as you stated it could only take place within a location specific CAA granted "height rule" exemption.

There was no over arching model plane height rule when that flight took place, only the talk of one.

 

No, you only need an additional exemption if the model is >7.5kgs. The BMFA Article 16 Auth has no height limit for models <7.5kg:

 

Edited December 24, 2023 by MattyB

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

My apologies to some people who I might have offended, why ?, to prove a point I took my ASW 19, 3m75 or so up today as I wanted to see what it looked like at 1000 feet, well I did take it up to 1049 feet ( 320m) and to me that was getting very uncomfortable, even though it was a clear sky, it was ok above me as I could clearly see it's silhouette but when I ventured away from the field it wasn't very easy seeing it and worse still sometimes it just disappeared, so I am sceptical at the 1.500feet claims.

I did fly it at what to me was the maximum altitude when I fly my Rafale and I was surprised to see that i was at an altitude of around 180m.

 

Ps; a mere 17°c  😇

[steve too]

22 minutes ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

... I took my ASW 19, 3m75 or so up today as I wanted to see what it looked like at 1000 feet, well I did take it up to 1049 feet ( 320m) and to me that was getting very uncomfortable, even though it was a clear sky, it was ok above me as I could clearly see it's silhouette but when I ventured away from the field it wasn't very easy seeing it and worse still sometimes it just disappeared, so I am sceptical at the 1.500feet claims.

 

I have aerotowed up to 1000ft with a 6ft wingspan tug.

 

22 minutes ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

I did fly it at what to me was the maximum altitude when I fly my Rafale and I was surprised to see that i was at an altitude of around 180m.

 

I take my FunJet up to that sort of altitude.

[JOHN MOSLEY 2]

To be fair in Winter the angle of the sun has a large effect on the visibility of any model, to me its a lot harder to see the model.

[Peter Jenkins]

1 hour ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

My apologies to some people who I might have offended, why ?, to prove a point I took my ASW 19, 3m75 or so up today as I wanted to see what it looked like at 1000 feet, well I did take it up to 1049 feet ( 320m) and to me that was getting very uncomfortable, even though it was a clear sky, it was ok above me as I could clearly see it's silhouette but when I ventured away from the field it wasn't very easy seeing it and worse still sometimes it just disappeared, so I am sceptical at the 1.500feet claims.

I did fly it at what to me was the maximum altitude when I fly my Rafale and I was surprised to see that i was at an altitude of around 180m.

 

Ps; a mere 17°c  😇

It's not surprising that your ASW 19 is difficult to see when it's all white with just 2 small red wing tip markings.  Even full size gliders are very difficult to see head or tail on as their cross section is very small compared with a powered aircraft.  The other issue is the blue sky in the photo.   I find it is the most difficult sky to deal with as regards seeing the orientation of the aircraft.  That's why F3A models have very jazzy finishes with contrasting colours in order to let them be seen not just by their pilots but also the judges.  They also have highly contrasting top and bottom colours as per the photos below.  The fuselage is exactly 2 m long while the wings are around 1.8 m span.  I find the best conditions are when it's completely cloudy with light coloured clouds.  As I say, a pure blue sky can make it difficult to see the aircraft's attitude clearly.  Some scale jets with the sort of grey finish of today's combat aircraft are difficult to see and orientate particularly in cloudy conditions when they tend to blend into the could.  As you can see from the photos, F3A machines are anything but designed to blend in with the sky!

 

 

[MattyB]

After a DLG comp ~10 years ago I saw one of the best pilots at the time hook a thermal at about 100ft altitude and ride it to a telemetry verified 2300ft. For most of the flight he lay down on the floor so he didn’t have to take his eye off the model or crane his neck. That was a 60” DLG with a plain Kevlar wing and a few black stripes for orientation. If I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes…. but it did happen, and shows what is possible for the best pilots. I certainly couldn’t have done it though, even though I was in my early 30s at the time with better eyesight.

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

12 hours ago, MattyB said:

After a DLG comp ~10 years ago I saw one of the best pilots at the time hook a thermal at about 100ft altitude and ride it to a telemetry verified 2300ft. For most of the flight he lay down on the floor so he didn’t have to take his eye off the model or crane his neck. That was a 60” DLG with a plain Kevlar wing and a few black stripes for orientation. If I hadn’t seen it with my own eyes…. but it did happen, and shows what is possible for the best pilots. I certainly couldn’t have done it though, even though I was in my early 30s at the time with better eyesight.

I have seen the French with their Pulse jets probably as high as that, then they glide down what seems like hours ( exaggerating ) with a perfect landing at their feet.

[Peter Miller]

On and off over the years I have done quite a bit of aerial photography from models.  Mainly to look for crop marks.  My camera planes would be taken up to great heights.

A few years ago (before the pandemic) I took my Super Scorpion up over my village.  Not sure how high it was but I could see it perfectly.  Camera was a Mobious video and still.The shot is a frame from the ten minute video taken on that day.

 

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

Yes Peter those were the days, I did videos over 2.5 klm away,  sites that were really beautiful, rivers small town soaring like a free bird, those days are long gone.

With the new laws I have blocked them on youboob, most around 2012.

[Peter Miller]

The first ones that I took were back in the 70s.  Then in the early 80s I did more looking at a local archaeological site in the area for a amateur archaeologist and I flew at Flag Fen for Blue Peter.   Had an article in Amateur Photographer and another in "The Journal of Aerial Archaeology.  

All before drones had been thought of.  Now they can  do so much more and better in that field.

I have the odd picture that make the hair stand up on my head now.

[steve too]

On 25/12/2023 at 19:46, MattyB said:

... telemetry verified 2300ft ... 60” DLG ... 

 

The Internet says that the human eye has an angular resolution of 28 arc seconds. I make that 450...

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

450 what Steve?

 

The internet also says that the range of human visual acuity ranges from legally blind to 6/3 so I assume your figure relates to the average (6/6 - the ability to see what an average person sees at a test distance of 6m.   Apparently, 10% of the population have a VA of 6/5 (they can see at 6m what the average person sees from 5m which equates to the bottom line of the standard eye test chart) - happily, with glasses or contact lenses I'm one of them and have often flown 2m gliders at well over 1000' AGL without difficulty. However, there are rarer cases of people having exceptional vision up to 6/3.  I remember reading that the great test batsman Viv Richards could identify individual faces in the crowd from the batting crease.

 

I understand that the mechanics of human vision are far more complex than simple "pixel size/count" though, and the brain processes the information gathered by the eye's micro movements to build a picture more detailed than the simple optics of the eye can provide as a snapshot.

[Tim Kearsley]

1 hour ago, steve too said:

 

The Internet says that the human eye has an angular resolution of 28 arc seconds. I make that 450...

Depends on far too many variables for a statement like that.