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

Member postings for Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator

Here is a list of all the postings Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.

Thread: Missing Article - aerodynamics of biplanes
23/02/2017 21:50:44

Hi Chris,

I remember writing it! And yes it was definitely published - May 2012 edition of the magazine.

BEB

Thread: german decals
22/02/2017 10:05:49

I've used Modelmarkings and found them to be very good. Excellent quality, large selection and able to produce to your particular needs if required.

BEB

Thread: Bad News And Good.
21/02/2017 22:29:05

No Guvnor - that figure of 38,000 is indeed for a month.

Also as RCM&E is the largest circulation RC mag in rhe UK I'm afraid that C8's assumption that RCMW's circulation is similar is also somewhat wide of the mark! RCMW's circulation is rather lower than RCM&E.

BEB

Thread: Staufenbiel
20/02/2017 11:48:48

Oh well, at least it is fesolved for you and you know they have matters in hand. I suspect they are moving to premisses with more space - I'm sure their business is growing rapidly

BEB

Thread: Binding and updating
20/02/2017 11:45:28

Can't be certain without looking it up Jim - and I'm not in my workshop so can't - but I suspect the following might be the reason - as well as the "rest of the world" system there were two versions of the EU protocol. The older, original, one was not LBT. So if you have that - which I suspect - it won't bind to an LBT configured Rx.

You'll need to check version to be sure my guess is right!

BEB

Thread: Staufenbiel
17/02/2017 17:11:07

I must be honest I am surprised by this. Up to now all I hear are very positive reports about Stauffie. Have you tried different email addresses? Sometimes companies don't monitor particular addreeses, may be that is the case here.

Also have you tried using Google Translate or similar so you can send your email in English and in German in the same "package" (but don't forget to say you need a reply prefably in English!) Google translate is not perfect - but as long as you write in simple sentences it is very good.

Despite my comments above I am also surprised you were not able to get through to someone on the phone who spoke English. I have had emails from them composed in perfect English so there are people in the company able to do this. Did you give them time to find someone to speak to you?

BEB

Thread: Bmfa adds
16/02/2017 23:15:31

That does not look good!

BEB

Thread: Help, two speed teapot.
16/02/2017 13:56:49
Posted by RC Plane Flyer on 16/02/2017 12:55:03:

Sounds like the lid has no vent hole maybe try without the lid and problem solved so then you may have to introduce some small packing piece under the lid to let the air in. Have a nice day

I agree that this sounds like the problem. The tea exits, creating a partial vacum, flow slows down. Then suddenly the teapot gets an inrush of air, the vacum dissapears and the tea gushes out! A simple way to test this is to remove the lid prior to pouring. If the effect goes away then you have found your problem. To perminantly fix it you will need a vent hole or a spacer!

BEB

Thread: Bmfa adds
16/02/2017 13:51:33

He may well be genuine - but he is using a method previously used by scammers. They give you a cheque, someone other than them collects. The cheque is then effectively "withdrawn" - the bank won't honour it. Now as I say, it could just be unfortunate that he happens to be doing what scammers do - on the other hand (as Ian says) you don't have to sell to him.

In your position I would tell hime that regretfully - the world being the place it is - you only accept cheques etc from people you know - everyone else is strictly "cash only".

BEB

Thread: Horizon Hobbies
15/02/2017 12:34:30

If what I hear is correct the UK Horizon office will not be far behind them.

BEB

Thread: Attaching lead for balance
14/02/2017 23:50:22

A line of debate has been removed from this thread. This forum does not recommend that people attempt to remove shot from live anmmunition.

BEB

Thread: Gorilla Glue
14/02/2017 10:25:17

Oh dear - these jokes are a bit tacky aren't they?

BEB

13/02/2017 19:12:19

I am assured that no gorillas are hurt in the making of the glue these days - its afully sustainable eco-friendly operation I'm told!

But I have to add that I take my hat off to those brave souls who go out there to milk the gorillas for the glue so that we can use it. Amazing people.

BEB

13/02/2017 14:29:07
Posted by David Tayler on 13/02/2017 11:48:45:

works very well,especially on fingers!

Actually I find that most glues work particularly well on fingers - even those that don't seem to work on anything else! Now, if we could make model aeroplanes out of fingers we'd be laughing!

BEB

Thread: Are the BMFA Mandatory Questions Applicable?
12/02/2017 22:22:06

Hi Tiger,

yes I considered that when you suggested it before. The problem is that I think the power that gives CAA is to effectively just "ground" and/or seize the aircraft rather than prosecute?

BEB

12/02/2017 17:33:06

H Martin,

CAP658 is of course not the law, it is guidance. But it is guidance issued by CAA - the authors of the ANO, so its pretty relevant guidance! That extract you quote is interesting because, whatever we may feel, that is CAA's interpretation of the old article 137 (now 240). As that is their interpretation then that would explain 240's absence from the new article 23 and offers further evidence of its irrelevance to model flyers. Indeed I am sure the hypothetical lawyer I referred to above, defending in a case of a model apparently endangering an aircraft, would be very happy to add this as further support to his argument!

Remember - its not about whether we think 240 should apply - is about does the ANO, as the law, actually say it does. And everything we find in there - and now in CAP658 - suggests not! Surprising as that may be. By the way,. I don't see that as a "fine legal point" - its pretty important and fundamental in my view!

BEB

12/02/2017 17:07:23

Martin, we have indeed already contacted CAA via email on the issue of the apparent inconsistancy between articles 23 and 240. But don't hold your breath on getting a reply! wink 2 However, if we do receive any guidance from CAA I will post it here.

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 12/02/2017 17:16:08

12/02/2017 14:07:31
Posted by John F on 11/02/2017 17:10:37:

The BMFA specialist has told you what the gen is. .

That rather assumes that he is correct John! He's a "BMFA Specialist" as you describe him, well I''m a qualified commercial UAV operator and have taught the legal aspects of UAV operation at post-graduate Masters level in a university - so I do know a thing or two about this and so maybe Andy doesn't have a monopoly of knowledge in this area - nor to be fair to him would he probably claim to do so! These are complex and important matters, worthy of debate and considering different informed points of view.

But to return to more important matters and attempt to answer Martin Harris's question "Does 240 apply?"....

I am sure it is the CAA's intention that it should. But does it in fact?

Well to use an example quoted earlier - if you endanger a aircraft by throwing rocks at it then you could definitely, and probably successfully, be prosecuted under article 240. But what about if you endanger an aircraft with a model aircraft? Then I'm not so sure.

Why? Well its all to do with the exact wording of article 23. Let's look at it again,...

Article 23:

"Exceptions from application of provisions of the Order for certain classes of aircraft
23.—(1) This article applies to—
(a) any small balloon;
(b) any kite weighing not more than 2kg;
(c) any small unmanned aircraft; and
(d) any parachute including a parascending parachute.
(2) Subject to paragraph (3), nothing in this Order applies to or in relation to an aircraft to which
this article applies.
(3) Articles 2, 91, 92, 94, 95, 239, 241 and 257 (except 257(2)(a)) apply to or in relation to an
aircraft to which this article applies, and article 265 applies in relation to those articles"

Paragraph 1 says this article applies to unmanned aircraft - that's us.

Paragraph 2 says that nothing in the entire ANO applies to unmanned aircraft except for certain specific articles mentioned in the next paragraph. (The key word there is "nothing"!)

Paragraph 3 lists those specific articles that apply. Note that article 240 is not in the list. Therefore it can reasonably argued that article 240 does not apply to unmanned aircraft (remember the wording of paragraph 2 - that nothing other than these articles apply to unmanned aircraft).

Was that CAA's intention? Probably not. But that is irrelevant - it is a law, the courts will interpret it on what it says - not what was intended. So if CAA did try a prosecution under the terms of article 240 in the case of an unmanned aircraft endangering another aircraft it is very unlikely to be successful in my view. Any good lawyer would simply cite article 23 in defence and as a consequence the court would have to rule that 240 doesn't apply!

This is not the first time the ANO has contained a contradiction - it probably won't be the last either!

So, returning to Martin's question, does it apply? Well by intention possibly, in reality almost certainly not.

On a final point. JohnF you put great faith in BMFA interpretation - fine, but take a look at the latest BMFA Handbook and the mandatory questions for the Achievement Scheme, neither of them even mention Article 23 in passing. Now as this is actually the article of the ANO that lists precisely what aspects of the order we as model flyers need to abide by don;t you think it is a bit odd that it's not even mentioned? Given it's such a fundamental article wouldn't you expect the Handbook to receive an update about it, and it be built into the questions? But it isn't. I wonder why that is?.... Could it be they didn't know about it do you think? Perish the thought wink 2

BEB

Thread: Gorilla Glue
12/02/2017 13:22:14

Yeap - good stuff. Just two things to keep in mind;

1. As you say it expands! It can force assembles apart in the wrong places and used over generously!

2. As Martian says its goes off in the bottle - eventually crystalising and going solid. So unless you plan to use a lot don't but big bottles!

A trick with it: if you want it to go off super fast (so as to "grab" some parts together for example) just dampen them with a little water spray - sets the glue off ultra fast.

BEB

Thread: Are the BMFA Mandatory Questions Applicable?
11/02/2017 15:15:26

What's the point - you never listen - you're not listening now!

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 11/02/2017 15:15:44

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
TJD Models
Gliders Distribution
Slec
CML
Advertise With Us
Overlander
Latest "For Sale" Ads
What's the main radio brand you use? (2017)
Q: What's the main radio brand you use?

 FrSky
 Turnigy
 Multiplex
 Hitec
 Futaba
 JR
 Spektrum
 Graupner
 Jeti
 Other

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us