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|
Thanks Peter I am aware that I do not express my self very well in print sometimes. But I really do care about model flying
Certainly you can read it on the BMFA website
And at the CAA says 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
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.
Interesting but the aircraft was not FPV why do you assume it was?
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.
Where as the rules A.N.O deals specifically with Small unmanned surveillance aircraft.
Small unmanned surveillance aircraft
Small unmanned aircraft
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
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 you
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|
It has occurred to me whilst standing on the slopes on a cold winters day exactly what Joe public might be thinking?
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|
Just a heads up that the legendary Pat Teakle Gliders are available again.
Very good to see another company revived in the UK
|Thread: Model Flying Insurance. Not BMFA|
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
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.
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|
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.
|Thread: Model Flying Insurance. Not BMFA|
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.
"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
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
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
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..
Edited By Bearair on 01/03/2014 08:29:33
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!