Enforcement of model flying regulations

[Geoff S]

36 minutes ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

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.

 

I have a book by Dennis Jenkinson called 'The Racing Diver'. I've had since I was a teenager in the late 50s.  Jenkinson was the 'passenger' (navigator in fact) when Stirling Moss won the Mille Miglia in a Mercedes and much of the book refers to Moss as well as the other Grand Prix drivers of the era.  He wrote for Motor Sport and, for a joke, had a copy printed of one of his articles at approx 12th size (12" page printed at 1" high). It was impossible to read without a magnifying glass, except when he showed it to Moss; he had little difficulty reading it.  It was just one of the physical attributes all the drivers had - that they had exceptional eyesight. I'm sure it applies to the current crop as well as other top sports people -including top RC pilots.

 

Sadly my eyes, even with glasses, are nothing like a good as they were when, as a teen, I had little difficulty seeing the smallest divisions on a steel rule.

[Peter Miller]

I had my cataracts operated on just before Covid struck.  I had my annual eye test done  on the 12th of December. 

I could read most of the letters on the bottom line of the chart.  The optician was most impressed.

[J D 8]

   I have been fortunate to have very good long range eyesight, handy for model flying and a few times have been able to guide others who have flown to far back to field.

  Also as a Coastguard a useful ability. However I was lucky to have a team member with exceptional eyesight.

We were on a search for missing scuba divers who had been carried away from their dive site by strong currents. Got ourselves to a highpoint to scan the sea in what I knew the way they would have been taken. Several of us looked around with nothing seen but then a team member said he thought he spotted a possible target but did not want to take his eyes off the spot. Even with binoculars I was unable to pick anything up.

  I took a bearing on the direction Chris pointed and passed it to a rescue helicopter over head.  In two mins the heli had them.  Chris had spotted two heads bobbing in not calm water over a mile away. No doubt he saved them. They had drifted over three miles

[Arthur Harris]

On 24/12/2023 at 07:07, 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 the BMFA missed a trick in not supporting aeromodeller of modest skills and aspirations.

I think the average modeller flies smallish planes withing the confines of a model airfield. 

The BMFA should have fought the corner of the average flier and sought an exemption for people who fly models of under 250gm, rubber powered, and sub-2kg planes that are electric powered. These could be flown under 400 feet and within, say, a 400-metre radius of a designated model airfield.

Those people who want to fly thousands of meters high, or off hills already 1000s of feet above sea-level, or want to fly ic or turbine planes could register with the CAA and fight their battles over the airspaces with commercial drones.

A few moments reflection will see that I am speaking for the modest hobbyist, and I think we are in the majority. By aligning us with drone fliers I fear the BMFA has jeopardised the hobby for people with modest aspirations.

[Arthur Harris]

On 24/12/2023 at 11:05, David Elam said:

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.

 

On 24/12/2023 at 12:03, 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.

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. No, I am saying you have a battle to fight, I haven't. I wish you luck , but there is no need to drag me down too. No challenge and little enjoyment to many of us. I would rather us people with quite modest aspirations be allowed to fly our modest planes without too much CAA interference.

Some people may call me selfish, but could perhaps the same be said for those who want to push limits and challenge a battle with the CAA in which we could all lose?

 

[Arthur Harris]

On 24/12/2023 at 12:07, leccyflyer said:

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.

I was trying to be ironic.  Many of us now retired first had an interest in model aviation when the likes of a Veron Impala was in vogue, and "full house" referred to 4 channels. Life, work and families took precedence and, on our return to model aircraft, just to learn to fly to the extent of getting in the air and down in one piece was enough of a challenge.

[Peter Jenkins]

1 hour ago, Arthur Harris said:

I was trying to be ironic.  Many of us now retired first had an interest in model aviation when the likes of a Veron Impala was in vogue, and "full house" referred to 4 channels. Life, work and families took precedence and, on our return to model aircraft, just to learn to fly to the extent of getting in the air and down in one piece was enough of a challenge.

I think Arthur, that your final sentence reflects that you have just reached the barely competent level of flying.  If you wish to remain there, then that's your decision.  Your story is very similar to mine and I really only advanced my flying once I reached retirement age.  If you approach your flying with a degree of commitment you would be able to improve your flying skills such that your final sentence would become redundant as you would be able to gain far more enjoyment out of the hobby, or sport, than you currently get by just taking your model home in one piece after your visit to the flying field.  Occasionally, there are pilots who find it very difficult to get the hang of flying beyond the survival level but in most cases this can be rectified by focusing on analysing why you are having difficulties and what to do about them.  Sometimes that is beyond the reach of the pilot at which point you should look around to identify those who turn up, fly to a good standard and take their model home in one piece virtually every time.  Ask them for some help.

 

Of course, you might be perfectly happy to continue to fly at the level you describe in which case that's fine.  

 

Those of us who have been flying models for some time and have reached a reasonable level of competence have been well aware of how the introduction of multi-rotor drones as well as autopilots have created difficulties for traditional model flying.  However, many of us have been following the whole saga and responding to the initiatives proposed by the CAA.  The BMFA has played a major role, and if you think they haven't, then you are extremely poorly informed.  Had it not been for the initiative taken by the BMFA, and their CEO in particular, EASA would not have made the rules that they have and life for our European brethren would be far worse than it is.  The BMFA, and other associations in the UK, were also instrumental in getting in to brief the Secretary of State for the DfT and he, very helpfully, gave a set of directions to his staff that has ended up with us being able to operate under Article 16 which, with the exception of having to register at a cost of half a gallon of glow fuel, has allowed us to continue flying as we have always done.

 

The current RID issue, will, provided that enough RC model pilots respond to the CAA's questionnaire, I suspect end up with some sensible solution that does not require those who operate from Club sites from being much affected.  The issue will be how we can extend a similar regime to allow the use of farmers' fields and slope sites without having to fit potentially expensive electronic RID equipment to our aircraft.  Whilst I only fly from Club sites, I fully appreciate the need to fight the corner for my fellow pilots who don't.  

 

One of the reasons that the BMFA exists is because those pilots who wish to fly in competition at both national and international level work hard on behalf of everyone to achieve the solutions that enable them to enjoy the sport at the highest levels.  In my experience, very few BMFA members actually understand that there are only 3 professional staff in the BMFA who are focused on these issues.  The rest of the BMFA is run by volunteers.  They don't have the same rather shameful approach that you are adopting of "I want to just look after my interests".

[GrumpyGnome]

6 hours ago, Arthur Harris said:

A few moments reflection will see that I am speaking for the modest hobbyist, and I think we are in the majority. 

Well Arthur, I am a "modest hobbyist", in that I have no turbines, or very large/heavy planes, and no interest in flying particularly high, or far away, and do not fly competitively. Let me assure you that you are 100% wrong if you believe you are speaking for me.  Given the level of support you are receiving on this forum, most people disagree with you, irrespective of the way they enjoy this hobby.

 

I have no idea if my club is average, but the majority of more active flyers use machines outside your 'modest' definition and parameters in one way or another.  This includes me, a "modest hobbyist".

 

As I said in an earlier response, if we were forced into the restrictions you suggest, they'd leave, the club would fold and if there were a few remaining ex-members happy with the restrictions, they'd have nowhere to fly their sub 2kg electric models safely.

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

13 hours ago, Peter Miller said:

I had my cataracts operated on just before Covid struck.  I had my annual eye test done  on the 12th of December. 

I could read most of the letters on the bottom line of the chart.  The optician was most impressed.

Try this one Peter,,, "impress me",,😇

[Peter Miller]

6 minutes ago, Paul De Tourtoulon said:

Try this one Peter,,, "impress me",,😇

"Ying Tong Iddle I po!"  Famous song from the 50s!!!

[leccyflyer]

9 hours ago, Arthur Harris said:

I was trying to be ironic.  Many of us now retired first had an interest in model aviation when the likes of a Veron Impala was in vogue, and "full house" referred to 4 channels. Life, work and families took precedence and, on our return to model aircraft, just to learn to fly to the extent of getting in the air and down in one piece was enough of a challenge.

That's certainly not what came across. As confirmed by your other comment that you were just making things up.

[Christopher Wolfe]

14 hours ago, Peter Miller said:

I had my cataracts operated on just before Covid struck.  I had my annual eye test done  on the 12th of December. 

I could read most of the letters on the bottom line of the chart.  The optician was most impressed.

When I was much younger (21) a military doctor asked me to read the bottom line of his eye chart and so I told him PRINTED BY THE BRITISH OPTICAL COMPANY.

 

I was then asked to read it backwards. Nowurries!

 

A nice pass on that one  and also the Ishihara test was important for my career.

 

I suspect that genetics and luck has a bit to play in this.

 

 * Chris  *

 

[steve too]

16 hours ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

450 what Steve?

 

I'll give you two choices. arc seconds (the unit used in the previous sentence) or elephants.

 

It is what is referred to as a first approximation. The result of a rough calculation that confirms that the DLG was approaching the limits of the Mk. 1 Human Eyeball.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Flying elephants?

[Zflyer]

Enforecement of model flying regulations. 

Could have sworn my eyes read that for this thread!!!

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Test your eyes on this chart.

[Erfolg]

A significant issue for the generally accepted/defined traditional model aircraft flyers is that we number so few, probably about 27-28,000 as BMFA members. Within our small grouping, our interests, how and what we fly are many and varied. As a group we have more in common with each other than the differences.

 

With respect to drone flyers, they generally do not fit easily within the traditional model aircraft flyer. Now that the majority of drones are purchased as a complete airframe, incorporating a level of electronics and transducers that at present are at a level the majority of aero modellers see as alien to how we operate and at present wish to operate. In general these guys are in love with the modern world. These guys interest and histories, separate them in general from most traditional aero modellers

 

From the perspective of the BMFA, their money, that comes from Membership in itself is welcome (I am sure). Also boosting the numbers that the BMFA officially represents makes the organisation more relevant to officialdom. At a practical level, I suspect the range of interests and operating scenarios is so wide that effective representation is challenging, often interests will be divergent. Whose interests will  predominate?

 

I could not help but read and note a news item about an unauthorised drone flight that was at variance of many of the CAA regulations, during the Coronation event. In essence what occurred is so dissimilar to how any of the present and historic aeromodellers operate to differentiate us from many drone operators. The drone flier has been identified, trialled and sentenced. In essence what occurred is representative of a reoccurring  theme by a group  of drone fliers, how large would be a guess by me, yet reoccurs.

 

I am sure that more regulations are heading down the tracks towards us, some drone fliers are not helping out cause. A real issue will not only be the issue of our compliance, but almost certain increased cost, linked into the onerousness that could be the cause of many of us deciding eneough is enough, and take up crown green bowling in preference.

 

 

[Peter Miller]

To quote a very old comment "Roll on death, retirement is too far away"

[steve too]

4 hours ago, Zflyer said:

Enforecement of model flying regulations. 

Could have sworn my eyes read that for this thread!!!

 

On 28/11/2023 at 11:13, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

New topic created for OT posts

 

VARIOUS OFF TOPIC POSTS SPLIT FROM CAA PRICE INCREASE THREAD

 

[Don Fry]

3 hours ago, Peter Miller said:

To quote a very old comment "Roll on death, retirement is too far away"

Or having achieved it, bowling. 

[MattyB]

On 27/12/2023 at 16:25, steve too said:

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

I understand your scepticism Steve - I would be the same if I hadn’t been there when this flight was completed. When the model was up there I could only see it myself if I lay on the floor and looked up (presumably because that enabled me to keep my head more still), but I still couldn’t see which way it was flying. The pilot must have had exceptional vision.
 

This pilot regularly flew at 1000ft+ with DLGs; he had lots of logged flights of this type around at that time, which may have been nearer to 15 years ago I think, when DLG was just getting bigger in the UK. It is a shame, as the altitude logger traces (I was incorrect saying telemetry; it was a logger that many DLG pilots used to fit back then to monitor their launch performance) used to be uploaded to the FlyQuiet forum, but that went offline a long time ago.

 

Edited December 29, 2023 by MattyB

[steve too]

53 minutes ago, MattyB said:

I understand your scepticism Steve - I would be the same if I hadn’t been there when this flight was completed. When the model was up there I could only see it myself if I lay on the floor and looked up (presumably because that enabled me to keep my head more still), but I still couldn’t see which way it was flying.

 

I believe that the flight happened. I was just pointing out that it was approaching the limits of the human eyeball.

 

I have a 60" moulded glider (not a DLG, it is probably over twice the mass of a 60" DLG) that I slope, I don't let it get very far away.

[Arthur Harris]

On 28/12/2023 at 05:36, GrumpyGnome said:

As I said in an earlier response, if we were forced into the restrictions you suggest, they'd leave, the club would fold...

Where would they go? Some would give up model flying altogether I suppose, as a protest, but those of us who fly modest EP planes may be able to continue. A farmer I know has allowed youngsters to rent a corner of one of his fields to be used by BMX bikers and RC car racers and has even gone to the extent of using a digger to create interesting courses with all sorts of hills and dips. It is one of his sidelines, like growing pumpkins for Halloween night, and allowing uses of unwanted pallets for Bonfire Night fires. I think he might be receptive to the idea of having a small model airfield.

The future of model flying may lie with park flyers, which I think are popular in the US.

[Peter Jenkins]

1 minute ago, Arthur Harris said:

Where would they go? Some would give up model flying altogether I suppose, as a protest, but those of us who fly modest EP planes may be able to continue. A farmer I know has allowed youngsters to rent a corner of one of his fields to be used by BMX bikers and RC car racers and has even gone to the extent of using a digger to create interesting courses with all sorts of hills and dips. It is one of his sidelines, like growing pumpkins for Halloween night, and allowing uses of unwanted pallets for Bonfire Night fires. I think he might be receptive to the idea of having a small model airfield.

The future of model flying may lie with park flyers, which I think are popular in the US.

Arthur,

 

You have to realise that the airspace above your house is not owned by you and which you can decide on how you use it.  The Government owns the airspace - all of it!  In the unlikely event of model flying as we know it today becoming unviable, so will being able to fly modest EP planes.  Do you not understand that?  In any event, I do not believe that there will be any curtailment of the type of model aircraft flying undertaken today.  There may be an issue over the use of RID or NRID for model flying sites that are not identified as "authorised" sites - one hopes that the CAA will look to the 4 Associations to carry out this activity on their behalf as it will save them a great deal of trouble.

 

Yes, this may impose additional costs on some who are unable to fly at an "authorised" site and that will be unfair.  Sadly, life is unfair!

[GrumpyGnome]

6 hours ago, Arthur Harris said:

Where would they go? 

They would leave the hobby, take their subs with them, and stop spending thousands of pounds a year on the hobby.

 

6 hours ago, Arthur Harris said:

The future of model flying may lie with park flyers, which I think are popular in the US.

They are. But the US acceptance of what is a park flier (indeed, what a park is!) differs from ours