By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more

Member postings for Keith Lomax

Here is a list of all the postings Keith Lomax has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.

Thread: EASA NPA 2017-05
25/05/2017 15:26:05

The CAA will take the route that requires the least on-going workload to administer.

24/05/2017 09:59:46

They key point that I was trying to get across is that BMFA, through our CEO, has been very active in the discussions as we have supported his involvement with Europe Airsports (EAS) who are fronting all modelling associations in the discussion with EASA.

If you want the political slant on this, EAS is having to use the French and German MEPs to influence EASA, as they carry a lot more clout in Brussels than the UK MEPs.

23/05/2017 14:23:15
Posted by Erfolg on 22/05/2017 20:36:59:

I am wondering if the BMFA negotiating team have a group of readers such as Matty et al, who are going through the discussion documents, line by line etc. Then preparing a set of supporting notes, with respect to issues as discussed here, again paragraph by paragraph, clause by clause.

EASA won't negotiate with individual national associations (understandable as they have 32 to deal with). They don't even negotiate with "competent authorities" (CAA) individually.

However, Europe Air Sports (EAS) is an umbrella body who are negotiating with them. Their lead expert for model aircraft just happens to be the BMFA's CEO, and as you could guess, he is all over this.

He is also working very closely with the CAA to agree a joint position - because the interpretation of the EASA rules will be implemented by the Department of Transport and CAA want to present them with a unified approach.

Thread: Glossary - your forum needs you!
22/05/2017 15:41:32
Posted by Josip Vrandecic -Mes on 21/05/2017 22:13:29:

Hi All , as a foreigner, the RCM&E glossary is very important, so I have noticed that the explanation for the US abbreviation PNP is missing ... I think it is pronounced Plug and Play (plag'n play). These are actually RTF models but the last word will give Mr. Moderator who is on duty tonight wink 2...thanks Sir !

Edited By Josip Vrandecic -Mes on 21/05/2017 22:14:52

I suspect that this comes from the PC arena. In the days when USB was a new thing, Plug and Play meant that you could connect your new device to your PC and it would download the drivers and start to work.

Of course, with the vaguaries of Microsoft, most IT people called it Plug and Pray.

Thread: Scaling up - advice needed
18/05/2017 13:27:54
Posted by Airhead on 14/05/2017 20:29:36:
My approach is a ballpark calc based on power to weight. If you double the size of a plane, it's weight is 8 times the original (roughly, ballpark figures remember) as it's twice as wide, twice as long & twice as high. 2x2x2=8 so you want an engine with 8 times the power.

This process only works if you are using proportionally thicker wood.

If the plan is frame built using 6mm square, and you increase the dimensions by, say 14% then you are only increasing the weight by 14%, For any sheet covering or 2-dimendional structures (ribs, firewalls, servo trays, etc.), then it adds about 30% to those components (1.14 squared). Add in a bit for a larger fuel tank and the bigger engine, and you are probably increasing the weight by 20-25% overall.

Thread: EASA NPA 2017-05
17/05/2017 16:01:13

The BBC short video on Guernsey's "drone fence" says "stops it and sends it back to where it came from". This would suggest that all it is doing is blocking the signal and relying on the failsafe being set to "return to home". If you set the failsafe on the other side of the prison, then the return home path will overfly the prison. Some sort of trigger to release the contraband mid flight (could just be a DT timer) would overcome this problem.

Thread: BMFA Buckminster opens Monday 8th May.
10/05/2017 15:15:30
Posted by Steve J on 06/05/2017 09:28:09:
Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 05/05/2017 11:37:52:

Day pass for flying is £6.

Has the BMFA published an estimate for the annual running costs of the NFC? I am curious as to how many £6 day passes it would take to cover it.


Yes - there were some figures presented at the AGM - these are based on estimates for usage and costs. This is still very much a work in progress as we will learn from experience.

As well as the £6 per day usage, the main income is from either flightlines, or the whole flying area, being rented out for contests - most of the competitive disciplines have been suffering for years due to lack of available sites. (This is why people are advised to check the calendar on the National Centre website before planning a visit.)

Broadly speaking, usage of the site is hoped to cover the running costs. The rental for a few years will mostly be covered by the ongoing generous sponsorship from the insurance brokers. Future phases of development are dependant on money from other sources - donations / grants / sponsorship and any surpluses from ongoing operation.

Grants is an interesting area - when we have previously made enquiries, we were told that these mainly work on match funding and now that we have something to show this is now in a position to be further investigated.

Thread: Aeromodellers or model flyers?
02/05/2017 14:36:32
Posted by PatMc on 30/04/2017 22:34:32:
Posted by Daithi O Buitigh on 30/04/2017 22:12:45:

As I pointed out in another thread, the Society of Model Aeronautical Engineers transmuted into the British Model Flying Association.

That should answer the question I suppose wink

Yes, our national society dropped the inaccurate grandiloquent title for a more honest if mundane name. wink 2

I don't have a particular axe to grind as I got involved in SMAE/BMFA activities at around the time of the change, after the decision had been made.

We are still the Society of Model Aeronautical Engineers Ltd. The AGM is the SMAE AGM. However, we are now SMAE Ltd. trading as British Model Flying Association.

My preference is to assemble a kit, and I have built from plan. However, I would not consider that Aeronautical Engineering. Those of us who are clever enough, and have the time to design and build their own model are worthy of that mantle. Therefore the latter name is appropriate to me, and I suspect a high majority of our members.

Also, it was felt that the name change was a key part of gaining recognition of model fling as a sport.

Thread: BMFA NAtional Centre website launched
22/03/2017 15:58:28
Posted by Dickw on 22/03/2017 12:47:03:

He just means that even those within the BMFA organisation running BMFA organised competitions will also have to pay for their events, and will not be subsidised by others.

Some people might have expected otherwise.


Thanks Dick - Pretty much spot on. Nobody is exempt from paying for their use of the site.

22/03/2017 12:03:41

I don't know if usage charges were specifically stated previously but that has always been the intention, and would have been mentioned if asked. I doubt anybody will have assumed otherwise. That was certainly part of the information provided to the Council Members, who include the Area Delegates.

There will be a daily usage charge as well. The idea is that the centre income at least covers operational running costs so that the wider membership is not subsiding those who happen to live close enough to make more use of it. Even BMFA technical committees will be charged to book a flight line to hold a competition.

21/03/2017 10:55:53

Yep, there has never been any indication of if/when a tarmac runway would be provided in any of the materials distributed since the Buckminster site was announced - they go to the end of phase 2.

We have always said that later developments will depend on the availability of funding. This could come from donations, sponsorship or usage of the centre - there are no plans at present to increase subscriptions to pay for this (and as Treasurer, I hope that there never will be). The grass runway, however, should be a very good one.

20/03/2017 11:27:39
Posted by Erfolg on 17/03/2017 18:41:07:

I can only applaud the initiative.

I see that the Universities challenge is headed that way, not as sure, as i have always been less than convinced that east of Leicester is the best location, for many things. But hey, many universities, or should that be the students, do enjoy a good week end at the bar and why not.

As long as it is made to pay, great.

Assuming it is made a viable venue,I am looking forward for a similar resource in the Northern powerhouse. After all a good part of the English population is located in this belt.

Any way, well done.



I understand that Leeds is considered to be part of the Northern Powerhouse. Buckminster is closer to Leeds (97 miles) than to the centre of London (105), which virtually the same as Manchester (108) and only slightly less than Liverpool (128). The population of London is similar to that of the NPH. Even Southampton (176) is the same distance away as Newcastle. Britain's second largest city is less than 70 miles away.

Edited By Keith Lomax on 20/03/2017 11:53:07

Thread: Dihedral question
06/02/2017 10:11:27

Isn't the lift on the wing perpendicular to the leading edge? If that is the case then whether or not a wing has dihedral depends on the angle between the two leading edges, so the information given at the start of this post is not sufficient to decide.

Thread: London Model Engineering Exhibition - Where are all the planes ?
30/01/2017 16:04:15

Building on Kc's and Martin Dilly's comments ...

I attended the Model Engineering Exhibition from around 1990 to 2000 (give or take a year at each end).

The show was "owned" by the Society of Model and Experimental Engineers (great source of confusion between SMEE and SMAE), and they ran it jointly in conjunction with MAP / Nexus in those days.

I attended two or three at Alexander Palace, then it moved to Olympia, and from the second year there we gained the second hall exclusively for flying (which included indoor control line team race, heli flying, indoor aerobatics and free flight - there were so much exhaust fumes in the atmosphere it was probably inflammable).

Throughout that time it ran from the last Sunday in December (or the last bank holiday if Christmas fell at the weekend) until the first Saturday in January. A lot of the trade stands relied on the fact the friends and family of the independent shop owners had long Christmas breaks from work and could either man the stand or backfill in the shop. It was seen as being the place to go and spend your "Christmas money".

Then the owners of Olympia decided to not only increase the hire cost of the venue (one of the SMEE committee said that they wanted £1 million per day) but also to knock down the car park to build flats.

It moved back to Alexander Palace, but the traditional week was no longer available and it was held for a couple of years over a three or four day long weekend in early December. The traders couldn't rely on their supporting staff, and the prices went up so many of them boycotted it. As I understand it, the show as we then knew it ceased to be.

In parallel with this, the London Model Engineering Exhibition was held at a different time of year in North East London (Pickets Lock). I never went but the BMFA started to take a stand there at about the time that the MEX moved back to Ally Pally.


Edited By Keith Lomax on 30/01/2017 16:05:56

Thread: BMFA Country Members
20/01/2017 15:16:10
Posted by Peter Christy on 20/01/2017 14:47:37:

I spent some time as an Area rep on the Area Council. Our area always held a meeting before any council meeting, where we would go through the agenda, and I would be instructed how to vote on each topic. It was always understood that should new facts come to light at the Council meeting that shed new light on the matter, I was at liberty to vary my vote, but that I would then have to justify that change at the next meeting.

I think I only had to change my vote once (maybe twice - its a while ago now!), and each time my actions were approved by the area retrospectively. But it was a matter of trust. They trusted me to vote on their behalf, and I had to respect that trust.

Any rep who loses the trust of his constituency won't last very long!



.. and unless the vote at Council was unanimous, it was only your honesty that informed your area that you had voted otherwise than as instructed because the minutes only record the numbers.

20/01/2017 15:12:51
Posted by Martin Harris on 20/01/2017 14:18:20:

That's quite true Keith, and I think John has summed it up rather well!

I have to say that the drawback of the proxy vote system in the context of a meeting where issues are debated is perfectly illustrated by your experience. While I applaud your integrity, how can a club mandate you to vote without listening to any new facts or arguments presented at the meeting - why have a meeting if this isn't the reason? I have certainly opposed the idea of proxy voting at our club AGMs for this very reason.

I agree, and that was one of the compelling arguments against changing the voting to individual members - if AGM and EGM votes were on this basis then we would need to hire an arena to accommodate the potential attendees, or most would be voting by proxy, neither situation is any better than the current position.

20/01/2017 12:02:53
Posted by Martin Harris on 20/01/2017 11:07:24:

Is there any way to check how my club's vote was cast? I haven't seen a breakdown of the voting published anywhere - were the individual votes recorded in any official document (Keith, Andy, Peter - can you answer this?) so the membership of my club could be in blissful ignorance that they might have been misrepresented had I gone the other way.

No, the votes are only tallied for the number of votes carried, we do not record the individual votes cast.

In my case, as well as my own, I was also carrying five proxies. Three of them voted one way and two the other. I did queue up on both sides and cast the votes as I had been asked to do, but there would have been no way for those clubs to know if I had done so. It was down to my integrity and conscience.

In relation to your 51/49 divide of opinion, have you considered the third option - "don't know or care". I suspect that in most clubs this will be the majority in a split along the lines of 11/10/79 (or even 1-0-99?) for most subjects.

Thread: LMA v BMFA insurance
17/01/2017 13:57:16
Posted by Pete Willbourn on 17/01/2017 12:16:08:

one or two people mentioned "Why" ??

With our club it goes back years and years , When some of us were Smae , Map and "covered by our house insurance".

The covered by "my house insurance" bothered us as a club because it was so wooly and we were never sure the members were Really insured ,So we made the simple rule to join the Bmfa for its insurance , any other benefits were a "bonus " we lost the odd member but 99% enrolled .

As we fly on private ground , the landlord needed proof of insurance and this was the easy way out , and still is after many years


Going back about 20 years, the house policy that I had at the time included cover. When I looked into it the liability was £20k. At the time the BMFA cover was, I think, £2m.

17/01/2017 11:49:19

Just to give you all an update regarding the filing of the accounts at Companies House (CH).

They were sent by post in December, but not loaded by CH to their website. A second set was sent last week together with the proof of postage for the first set, which has been accepted by CH and is now uploaded - with no penalty charge.

I was told that, unfortunately, they do not accept a scanned PDF electronically - if you wish to upload electronically you apparently have to retype the accounts into their form, which is not a practical solution.

12/01/2017 10:24:51
Posted by john stones 1 on 11/01/2017 17:42:54:
Posted by Gary Manuel on 11/01/2017 17:30:17:

BMFA are generally doing a great job as far as I can see. I'm happy to pay the current subs - especially with what's looming.

They just need to listen to their members re proportional representation and move into the current century to get the full support and respect of the members.

Am I right in thinking that the officials get more than one vote? If so, this further multiplies the odds over normal members who only get a a small fraction of a single vote. The fraction being the reciprocal of the number of members in the club. As for country members, well they are totally disregarded in an unfair manner.

Surely the officials can see that it is in everyone's interest to move towards one man one vote? They might just need to work a little bit harder though, in getting their point of view across to members prior to important votes. If this had been done for the NFC for example, everything would have been settled now with no disgruntled members.

That's my point of view and rant over.

I believe fellows have 5 votes if a card vote is called ?

The BMFA got it's point of view across re NFC at your club, you played a part in ensuring it.wink and communication has improved i think.

OMOV ? yep me too on big decisions.


Yes, that is right, Fellows (of whom there are around 30 still alive) get 5 votes on a card vote at a general meeting (EGM or AGM). Other "officials" only get a vote at these meetings only if they are also representing a club, so may have no vote at all.

Prior to OMOV being implemented for the annual elections, Fellows also used to get 5 votes in those.

The rationale behind this is that the constitutional membership of the SMAE Ltd is the clubs and fellows. As a club needs a minimum of five members to affiliate, and clubs get one vote for each affiliated member, this gives a fellow the same voting power as the smallest clubs.

In practice, this has minimal effect because card votes are very rare, and then even if all fellows participate in the vote and all vote the same way, they still only have the same voting strength as a large club.

In other circumstances:

- at Area meetings, votes are only cast by clubs (one vote per club irrespective of size) and fellow get no vote unless they are representing a club (and even Area officers only get a vote if representing a club).

- at BMFA council meetings, it is one vote per member of that council, irrespective of whether or not a fellow. However all members of Full Council must be either a fellow or a member of a club

- at Technical Committee meetings it is one vote per member of that committee.

Email News - Join our newsletter

Love Model Aircraft? Sign up to our emails for the latest news and special offers!

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Skip Model April
Gliders Distribution
TJD Models
Advertise With Us
Latest "For Sale" Ads
How many plan-built models have you made or started in the last year?
Q: How many plan-built models have you made or started in the last year?

 5 to 10

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us