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

Member postings for Bearair

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

Thread: CAA prosecutes flyer
03/04/2014 11:18:16
Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 03/04/2014 11:07:35:

I'm going to backtrack somewhat, too. Having spent a bit of time reading through the relevant threads on the FPVHub forum, if one takes 80% of what is written there as fact, then the circumstances are rather different than I originally interpreted them from what had been published.

I think this case raises more than a few questions as to the standard of the investigation and prosecution process and, arguably, the conduct of the BMFA.

The chap concerned really hasn't helped himself in many respects and is certainly not blameless. Again, if what he says is correct, his representation leaves much to be desired.

I agree with Bearair that if this is the way model flyers are going to be dealt with in future, he is right to be concerned.

Pete

Thanks Peter I am aware that I do not express my self very well in print sometimes. But I really do care about model flyingsmiley

03/04/2014 11:03:07
Posted by Mr.B. on 03/04/2014 10:30:55:

Bearair, having re read the guardian link from the OP I confess I assumed that it was an FPV multi rotor type based on; the article refers to it as a drone (OK drone doesn't actually mean anything), it value of the AC is stated as £1000 and return to home as referred to. I have never come across RTH on FW. You have a better source of information on this story, can you share it please?

 

Certainly you can read it on the BMFA website

And at the CAA says here

And you can read what discussion has gone on about it here and here.

Personally I think that the guy was a bit stupid in the way he handled the whole thing, BUT what has happened to him could well happen to any of us with regards to the fly away.

Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 03/04/2014 11:14:54

03/04/2014 10:17:33

Your statement BEB

Not flying within 50m of a structure is an FPV rule in the framework agreed between the CAA and BMFA - nothing to do with whether the flight is classed as survailance. You are not to fly within 50m of a structure - period.

FPV has nothing to do with it, do you accept that now?

Tony Bennet, the comment was made "tongue in cheek" after everyone assumed it was an FPV model when it was LOS flown by a BMFA member. However as far as I am aware there is no forum law that states I must not criticise the BMFA if that criticism is justified. Would you kindly stop making unjustified allegations against a fellow forum member. Otherwise I will have to ask the mods to intervene. There are plenty of post's on here where I publicly support the BMFA.

BEB used an incident in which FPV was not involved to give his opinions on FPV as have others here. I was a member of the BMFA at the time of the incident as were many others here but I was not aware of the specific rules regarding a model fitted with a recording device. It would appear that is the case with many others. IMHO that indicates that the administrators of the BMFA are not getting the message out, particularly to there country members which this man was.

BEB this has serious implications for model flying since anybody with a model that fly's away could be charged with flying in a restricted airspace, it has set a legal precedent.

03/04/2014 09:21:53
Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 02/04/2014 19:27:56:

I'm afraid I have little sympathy.

The CAA lay down the rules specifically covering UAV and FPV flying very clearly - the BMFA reiterate those rules. Being ignorant of those rules is no more a defence here than it would be in any other walk of life.

The rules clearly state that you cannot fly within 50m of any structure. It appears he broke that rule - he has to accept the penalty.

Now some will say "but the drone was out of his control, it wasn't his fault". Well it shouldn't have been able to fly outside of his control. Where was his failsafe?

Outside of the specific regulations covering FPV he is also subject to the ANO - as are we all. Under that regulation he is required to be satisfied that the flight could be completed safely. But he had no provision for loss of signal. I think the prosecution was entirely justified. I hope it is widely publicised and makes some of the less responsible members of the FPV community sit up and take notice - the law applies to them just like everyone else.

I know and I fully acknowledge that there are many FPV flyers who operate fully within the regulations - but even the most fervent supporter of FPV cannot deny that this community does seem to have more than its fair share of people who think all regulation is negotiable, circumventable or ignorable. I know the organising bodies are doing what they can to get the message across - but I think they need to do even more. They must get FPV under full control and compliant with CAA regulations and the law. If not, there will be more of these instances and that will not help their cause at all, and most worryingly for the rest of us might even have knock on consequences for the wider hobby.

Before anyone says so - I'm not at all anti-FPV. I fully support our friends and fellow flyers that want to do this aspect of our hobby. Its great. But it has to be within the law 100% of the time.

BEB

Interesting but the aircraft was not FPV why do you assume it was?

03/04/2014 09:06:47

I really do not understand,

A. The aircraft the man was flying was not a quadcopter but a foam wing.

B. The aircraft was not being flown as an FPV but LOS.

And by the way the man was a member of the BMFA. Personally I hope the BMFA gets it out to its members that fitting a camera or video unit to your model turns it into a Small unmanned surveillance aircraft and so is subject to more rigorous flying restrictions. I hope the BMFA and its members don't ruin model flying for the rest of us.

03/04/2014 00:16:35

Where as the rules A.N.O deals specifically with Small unmanned surveillance aircraft.

Small unmanned surveillance aircraft
167 (1) The person in charge of a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not fl y the aircraft
in any of the circumstances described in paragraph (2) except in accordance with a
permission issued by the CAA.
(2) The circumstances referred to in paragraph (1) are:
(a) over or within 150 metres of any congested area;
(b) over or within 150 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1,000
persons;
(c) within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control
of the person in charge of the aircraft; or
(d) subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), within 50 metres of any person.
(3) Subject to paragraph (4), during take-off or landing, a small unmanned surveillance
aircraft must not be fl own within 30 metres of any person.
(4) Paragraphs (2)(d) and (3) do not apply to the person in charge of the small unmanned
surveillance aircraft or a person under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft.
(5) In this article ‘a small unmanned surveillance aircraft’ means a small unmanned aircraft
which is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition.

03/04/2014 00:11:23

 

 

Small unmanned aircraft
166 (1) A person must not cause or permit any article or animal (whether or not attached to a
parachute) to be dropped from a small unmanned aircraft so as to endanger persons or
property.
(2) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fl y the aircraft if reasonably
satisfi ed that the fl ight can safely be made.
(3) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must maintain direct, unaided visual
contact with the aircraft suffi cient to monitor its fl ight path in relation to other aircraft,
persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions.
(4) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft which has a mass of more than 7kg
excluding its fuel but including any articles or equipment installed in or attached to the
aircraft at the commencement of its fl ight, must not fl y the aircraft:
(a) in Class A, C, D or E airspace unless the permission of the appropriate air traffi c
control unit has been obtained;
(b) within an aerodrome traffi c zone during the notifi ed hours of watch of the air traffi c
control unit (if any) at that aerodrome unless the permission of any such air traffi c
control unit has been obtained; or
14 April 2010CAP 393 Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations
Section 1 Part 22 Page 6
(c) at a height of more than 400 feet above the surface unless it is fl ying in airspace
described in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) and in accordance with the requirements for
that airspace.
(5) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must not fl y the aircraft for the
purposes of aerial work except in accordance with a permission granted by the CAA

Where does the ANO state 50m of a structure with relation to Small unmanned aircraft?

Are you suggesting that someone flying in their back garden with a helicopter is breaking the ANO unless their house is very detached?

Edited By Bearair on 03/04/2014 00:12:54

02/04/2014 23:42:59
Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 02/04/2014 23:23:40:
Posted by Bearair on 02/04/2014 22:34:55:

It would be nice to think that those who have criticised FPV here actually knew what was legal and what was not!!

Ir Mr Knowles had read the very clear explanation of the law on the FPVUK website, so would he!.....smile

Taken from that page:

"At first it would appear that FPV flying would fall under article 167 for small unmanned surveillance aircraft because the ANO definition of an unmanned surveillance aircraft is as above in 167(5). However in situations where a camera is used for the sole purpose of controlling the aircraft the flight is not considered surveillance or data acquisition. CAP 722 article 3.4 in Section 3 Chapter 1 page 2 refers to this, copied here: “The provision of image or other data solely for the use of controlling or monitoring the aircraft is not considered to be applicable to the meaning of ‘Surveillance or Data Acquisition’ covered at Article 167 for SUSA.”

However if the video is captured in some way and used for other purposes the CAA considers the flight to have been for data acquisition and article 167 does apply." (my bold)

So he made three four mistakes:

1. He flew where he should not have.

2. He recorded the flight.

3. He published it on Youtube.

4. He got caught....

I'll not comment on the 'Spooks' aspect - we're all entitled to our fantasies...wink 2

Pete

Exactly he could of been flying a normal line of site aircraft equipped with a video camera, the fact he was flying FPV had nothing to do with it! It is clear from the wording of the A.N.O. that the concern is with SURVEILLANCE not with FPV.

Where do I mention "spooks"?

I think it might well be your imagination running away with youangry

02/04/2014 22:34:55

What every FPV flyer in the country should make themselves aware of is exactly what this man was guilty of.

Flying a unmanned surveillance aircraft within 50 metres of a structure.

If he had not been recording it the aircraft would of been a small unmanned aircraft and not a small unmanned surveillance aircraft. In the ANO if any of you bother to read it there is a big difference.

It would be nice to think that those who have criticised FPV here actually knew what was legal and what was not!!

Personally I think that it is obvious that it is the surveillance aspect that the government through the C.A.A are worried about.

I can happily relate many instances where the "established" modelling community turn a blind I to contraventions of the ANO. Take a look at the free flight nationals for a start. And as an ex-examiner I can tell you that at least 40% of fails on A and B test's I took were because people had not set their failsafe when one was fitted in direct contravention of the A.N.O.

Thread: Terrorism Alert
28/03/2014 09:09:44

It has occurred to me whilst standing on the slopes on a cold winters day exactly what Joe public might be thinking?

Combat trousers

Large coat

Baklava

Ski Goggles

Battery operated heated belt

And I fly within sight distance of a large radar installation(i think).

Hope someone will get me out of Bellmarsh!

Personally I do not buy into the whole "terror threat" business. It has been used to remove right's in this country and now as if being able to read our E-Mail's is not enough they want us to snoop on our fellow citizens. It is interesting that one poster has already casually used the expression Abdul in this thread. Obviously a reference to the type of people we should be looking for.

By the way my father was arrested for taking photo's of a works at Avonmouth, he was doing so for a Camera Club competition in 1972

Edited By David Ashby - RCME on 28/03/2014 10:22:02

Thread: Pat Teakle Gliders
04/03/2014 09:29:42

Hi

Just a heads up that the legendary Pat Teakle Gliders are available again.

Very good to see another company revived in the UK

Pat Teakle Gliders

Thread: Model Flying Insurance. Not BMFA
03/03/2014 10:34:42

Sorry Alan I did not mean to sound prickly, "Maybe the level of cover you have is my business! Certainly, if I need to make a claim on it," I have obviously taken this the wrong way apologies I know can be somewhat blunt at times.

I have suffered financial lost due to an un-insured flyer when I was hit by his 12ft wingspan model, just how bad it was did not become evident until along time after. I was trying (very badly) to point out that if anyone starts asking the people who choose to fly without insurance in the wrong way, then they most likely will be  told to go forth and multiply with a webb footed creature. And in that situation the only thing you can do is look for an attractive duck! I am aware of this from person experience. We need to coerce and persuade these people in my opinion and the cheapest insurance is the way to go.

 

Edited By Bearair on 03/03/2014 10:36:35

03/03/2014 09:18:49
Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 02/03/2014 13:49:24:

I think you haven't read all of my post properly...

I stated that I do have criticisms of some areas of the BMFAs operation, but please don't say I'm offering you old rhetoric when I am stating facts about the most popular insurance cover for model flying in the UK.

I have acknowledged all of the points you have made, but the reality is that the BMFA offers the most comprehensive cover (and FWIW use of the word cheap as has cropped up in this thread is all relative: I consider the BMFA insurance cheap for the level and type of cover it offers).

You might consider it unfortunate that to get this insurance you have to join the BMFA, but I will just reiterate that for the extra £10 or so a year on top of the insurance costs, the BMFA pursues a lot of good causes on behalf of model flyers of all shapes/sizes/persuasions. I do accept that it's up to the individual to consider that our continuing use of the 35MHz and 2.4GHz bands, use of MOD property for flying (and not just for large models or competitions), protection of flying sites and airspace is worthwhile or not....

You and others have raised the fact that your alternative insurance may be a more attractive option to new entrants who have bought their parkflyer etc either online or from a toyshop or such where they would not be encouraged to either have insurance or to join the BMFA to get insurance as they might at a traditional model shop.

Well, here's the thing. Your alternative £16 insurance might not sound attractive to a new entrant. Along the lines of "if it's not compulsory, then no thanks".

So, yes, well done for showing us all this alternative, cheaper insurance, but on balance I will stick to a better level of cover, efficient claims handling, a proven insurer who understands our operations and also the level of cover required etc.

I would consider the following to be rhetoric

The BMFA does have full-time employees who, among other things, negotiate the use of the frequency bands we need to control our models, negotiate for the use of and conditions under which we use the airspace, and also they have funded a legal case over the use of a flying site for a club within the last year or so (at their expense), as well as taking up planning permission cases for many others.

It increasingly is taking good quality promotion seriously (simulator trailer etc at full-size airshows, flight challenge for school kids and university heavy lift for students, finally a good quality website!). Plus, the BMFA news is a good tool to show people new to the hobby all the different facets our hobby can have and it also perhaps may highlight events and meetings that a new entrant may like to visit but would not otherwise have known about.

So, even if you don't like or don't agree with the way the BMFA works in some respects, you have to say that they are working hard to protect and promote the hobby on our behalf.

Your are not addressing the issue of insurance you are simply making the case for the BMFA and your not alone in doing this. It is actually taking the thread off topic which is Model Flying Insurance NOT BMFA! It is like when people ask for a "best phone NOT Apple" and we then get a string of people asking "why not apple" and then listing the benefit's of Apple.

03/03/2014 09:06:24
Posted by Allan Bennett on 03/03/2014 08:06:58:
Posted by john stones 1 on 02/03/2014 23:05:38:

... I don't see the problem with others shopping around for their insurance myself, the level of cover etc is a matter for you, not my business....

Hmmm... Maybe the level of cover you have is my business! Certainly, if I need to make a claim on it, I need to know that it's adequate. Discussion of the merits of £5m or £25m is a little meaningless, for insurance is designed to cover the unexpected, and there's no telling what the financial value is going to be put on the damage if you crash into someone or something. Just check out the cost of looking after a young person who's crippled for life, or rebuilding a large warehouse that's destroyed by fire.

Actually it is none of your business what so ever, since there is no mandatory requirement for insurance. But I can assure you that when people start to talk like that, then peoples attitude will start to harden. If you want to make it your business then start a campaign to make it mandatory.

John I can honestly say that I have been championing the cause of Country members for years, especially when I was a club delegate to area level. Losing my examiner status was not an issue with me, certainly not a gripe I was merely using it for an example to answer the question about country members. I have many more important (to my mind) gripes about how the paid employees of the BMFA are behaving and if your really interested I will PM you because I really did not want this thread to be about the BMFA.

It has always fascinated me the what ifs? I have seen hundreds over the years, of course they nearly always have the same characteristics. No evidence to back them up, and quite good imagination. What if you crashed your model through the hanger of some M.O.D property causing an explosion, the mod things it's a pre-emtive strike by the russians, We retaliate with a nuclear strike on Russia, leading to all out nuclear war. Then space aliens come to earth to finish off the remaining humans because of their war like barbaric ways. How is your 5million cover going to cover you then? Stupid of course but no more than others I have seen. You cannot insure yourself against everything.

Yet again I will reiterate I try and have got people who fly without insurance to get some ,and surely that is better than not trying anything than sitting here pontificating!

Thread: Best sailplane simulator on a Mac
02/03/2014 21:21:50

I would highly recommend trying Picasim, it is free on android and I think very cheap on Apple. Most of the Glider guys I know keep it on there phones as well. Developed by RC glider enthusiast.

Here

Thread: Model Flying Insurance. Not BMFA
02/03/2014 13:57:32
Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 02/03/2014 13:26:16:

I can see Bearair's point here. Whether we like it or not, or indeed understand it or not, there are people in this world that simply have an abhorrence of large organisations and "joining things" - so they just will not join the BMFA - even if its in their interests to do so. "There's nowt as queer as folk"!

And BMFA will not offer the insurance cover alone to non-members.

So, immovable object meets irresistible force!

There are also those, possibly a growing number, that aren't what we would recognise as aeromodellers. They just buy a cheap "toy aeroplane" from a non-model shop or online from ebay or Amazon and they know nothing about insurance and less than nothing(!) about the BMFA - and if its possible care even less again! To them this isn't a hobby they are planning to take up seriously - its just a short term novelty. True - it might grow, but right now they are not serious about this.

So I believe he's right - surely it is in in the interests of our hobby that these two camps get at least some sort of insurance - even if its not particularly great value due to being a lower level of cover, having more exclusions and maybe the insurers don't know as much. But its better than no cover at all!

I would feel that for 99.999% of us on here its a no-brainer - the BMFA insurance is better. More cover, more applicable and knowledgeable and most of all the more of us take it up the cheaper the individual cover becomes. So no - I wouldn't recommend this as a first choice package to anyone - I'd tell them they'd be better joining the BMFA. But I'd rather they had this than fly uninsured. I think the MOD thing is a bit of a red herring to be honest - I very much suspect that the people who would be content with this type of frankly rather second-rate cheap insurance are not going to be the sort of folks flying large models at MOD site events!

BEB

Thanks BEB what you say is correct, I have sorted insurance cover for a small group that would probably fly without any insurance if I hadn't. I too would not recommend it as a first choice but it is adequate and to me a damm site better than nothing. At the moment due to health reason's it is very unlikely I will be flying very much at all or even participate in this forum much. But if by chance I get the opportunity to go flying then at least I will be covered, if I regain full health then I will rejoin the BMFA just for the better cover.

With regard to Country membership.

No vote at area level. But as many votes as clubs you are in if a club member.

Not even allowed to participate at area level without the club delegates consent.

No dedicated Country members staff unlike club level

If you are not in a club your examiner status is revokes(or downgraded as the BMFA) puts it. So last year I could not take anyone for their Slope A test even though there were lot's who wanted me to and I was the only examiner in Cornwall who had taken such exams the previous year to my knowledge and the only examiner I am aware of regularly flying the slopes in Cornwall.

I will try to reply to any comments on this thread but I am afraid it will be very spasmodic.

Roger

02/03/2014 13:29:48
Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 02/03/2014 12:19:37:

BMFA Insurance does not cost £32! BMFA membership does cost £32 but the insurance is not the full amount....

The BMFA does have full-time employees who, among other things, negotiate the use of the frequency bands we need to control our models, negotiate for the use of and conditions under which we use the airspace, and also they have funded a legal case over the use of a flying site for a club within the last year or so (at their expense), as well as taking up planning permission cases for many others.

It increasingly is taking good quality promotion seriously (simulator trailer etc at full-size airshows, flight challenge for school kids and university heavy lift for students, finally a good quality website!). Plus, the BMFA news is a good tool to show people new to the hobby all the different facets our hobby can have and it also perhaps may highlight events and meetings that a new entrant may like to visit but would not otherwise have known about.

So, even if you don't like or don't agree with the way the BMFA works in some respects, you have to say that they are working hard to protect and promote the hobby on our behalf.

Since the BMFA moved to Doodson group for insurance they have also implemented a system where smaller (trivial) claims can be settled directly from the BMFA office and the office claims back the money later from the insurer, so this reduces bureaucracy for both parties in the claim.

I think (and this is a guess) that the insurance is about £22-£24 of the total membership cost. The cheapest cover mentioned above may not work as well as the BMFA insurance does. So the real comparison for insurance is £22-24 against £16.

Someone highlighted above that the BMFA insurance covers member-to-member, which to me, when flying on a remote slope with others would be a comfort if my model was to hit them or their car or expensive model and vice versa if they did the same to me.

I have my own views and issues about how the BMFA isn't perfect, but I do think that their insurance is good value all things considered.

"The dedicated parkflyer who has no wish to be a member of the BMFA (Please lets not get into an argument over why, just except some don't)"

Incredible why cannot some people just except the fact some of us do not want to be in the BMFA?. I think you are confusing what is real with what is theoretical. Theoretically you are only paying £22 for BMFA insurance but try just paying £24 you cannot do it the real cost if you only want insurance is £32. If as used to be the case the BMFA just offered insurance and it was competitively priced then I would suggest that. But the BMFA decided it did not want to do this because the majority of flyers did not care about the BMFA they just wanted insurance. Look at the figures for membership before insurance was mandatory and after, it shows a huge growth.

You may think the BMFA is great, I did once but now I don't and I was a member from 1972(SMAE) when very few others were.. What is this almost religious fervour some people exhibit when others offer competition to the BMFA?. So now we have a thread where if a beginner looks at it they may well conclude that the insurance offered above is not adequate. Not that any of the bemoaners have offered evidence other than anecdotal. Not that anybody has taken me up on my offer to show the actual policy on this forum.. Nope just the same old rhetoric.

I AM TRYING TO MAKE OUR HOBBY SAFER BY SHOWING AN ALTERNATIVE CHEAPER WAY TO OBTAIN INSURANCE. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT?

Edited By Bearair on 02/03/2014 13:30:51

02/03/2014 11:54:55
Posted by Simon B on 02/03/2014 11:12:19:

"1. The dedicated parkflyer who has no wish to be a member of the BMFA (Please lets not get into an argument over why, just except some don't)

2. The club not affiliated to the BMFA.

3. Glider pilots who fly from non club sites

4. People who fly from private flying sites

5. FPV fliers

6. People buying RTF's to fly at school playing fields, the beach etc."

The BMFA covers all those things, provided you're not a numpty about it. They've made specific mention of loosening FPV rules too. Not sure really what the problem is. You can be a Country Member if you're not a club member. This just sounds like people still misunderstand how BMFA insurance works.

Edited By Simon B on 02/03/2014 11:13:30

I am well aware the BMFA insurance will cover all that and I understand BMFA insurance as well as most. This is for people who either do not wish to be a member of the BMFA or simply want the cheapest insurance they can get. That's called competition, it is supposed to be the way cost's come down. Add to which a Country member doe's not get the benefit's a full member gets but is expected to pay the same amount.

Look at my thread about uninsured flyer's and the issues they might have. Where I fly  the majority of the guy's do not belong to a club and have no wish to. I am aware that some people fly without insurance, now do you think they are more likley to buy insurance for £16 or £32. I can now go to the slope and if in chatting I find they do not have insurance I can suggest to them this cheep insurance in fact if they want me to I can get them insurance there and then until August for £7.95. Now I think that is a good idea and the more people we can have insured the better.

Edited By Bearair on 02/03/2014 11:58:46

01/03/2014 12:26:15

Ok if anyone knows how to remove personal details from a PDF and then publish it on here, if they PM their E-Mail address and I will e-mail them a copy.

I do not see this as a direct competitor to the BMFA insurance, there are a few people who might consider it though.

1. The dedicated parkflyer who has no wish to be a member of the BMFA (Please lets not get into an argument over why, just except some don't)

2. The club not affiliated to the BMFA.

3. Glider pilots who fly from non club sites

4. People who fly from private flying sites

5. FPV fliers

6. People buying RTF's to fly at school playing fields, the beach etc.

And it is that last group who i think is the group with most to gain. Like it or not "toy aeroplanes" probably outsell "model aircraft". And most people will fly them without any kind of insurance. Now i think that if they realise the can get insurance quickly easily and for a really low cost you might get them to have some insurance. Now the insurance above runs August to August but it is pro-rata for what is left of the year, so if you join in December it is just over a tenner. You can pay by Paypal and download the document immediately.

At the moment no-one is really looking after these people and I feel it is the best interests' of us to do so. I think magazines and forums like this should have this information, and we should be getting the info out there.

 

Edited By Bearair on 01/03/2014 12:27:54

01/03/2014 08:28:38

I cannot really see anybody flying on a military site unless they are a member of the BMFA and if you wish to fly in competitions or fly'ins then because the BMFA do not allow other insurances this would not be suitable for you.

However if , as the majority of toy plane flyers do, you will be flying at school playing fields, farmers fields even your own back garden then the above insurance makes a lot of sense. Why pay twice as much to join an organisation set up for and run directly for the benefit of clubs. Toy plane flying has never been so easy to learn, in fact in an afternoon you can easily learn the basics with the advancements in electronics. Some people do not want to except this, I think because it upsets their sense of kudos, it was very hard for them to learn so it should be hard for others. If Joe Blogs can go out and buy an all in one system for about a hundred quid and because of the electronics fly it that afternoon what then for the club "expert"? I have seen so many posts about "not the right sort", there are even clubs where you have to attend an interview to make sure you are the "right type" "Old boy what what"

Anyway for people wishing to go it alone with toy aeroplanes I hope a few of you will advise them of this insurance, it must be better to have a mere £5million cover than none at all..

 

TTFN

 

​Roger

 

Edited By Bearair on 01/03/2014 08:29:33

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Subscribe now
Slec
CML
Sussex Model Centre
electricwingman 2017
Sarik
Advertise With Us
Latest "For Sale" Ads
NEW POLL - has the pandemic altered your event safety perceptions?
Q: Has the covid pandemic deterred you from attending shows and events in 2021?

 No, I'll be attending just as many as I usually do
 No, but I'll choose my event with greater care
 Yes, I'll attend fewer events going forward
 Yes, I wont attend any where previously I have

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!

Find RCM&E!