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

Member postings for Gary Manuel

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

Thread: Sign of the times - funnies
15/06/2019 09:40:28
Posted by Daithi O Buitigh on 15/06/2019 01:29:07:

summer

Looks like missing drivers....

...long distance drivers.

Thread: Good news thread.
13/06/2019 16:37:18
Posted by john stones 1 on 13/06/2019 15:08:09:
Posted by Gary Manuel on 13/06/2019 14:41:54:

I've made it to 60 smiley

Happy birthday old fella, get owt nice ?

Not even a lie-in sad

13/06/2019 14:41:54

I've made it to 60 smiley

Thread: Interesting reply from email to Richard Moriarty, CAA
10/06/2019 17:31:41
Posted by Peter Christy on 10/06/2019 17:17:54:

At the very least, I don't think it will do any harm.

... other than giving the impression that we are against drone registration. I think this is a harmful message to send.

10/06/2019 15:26:13

I just can't bring myself to sign the petition as I don't agree with it. I have no objection to drone registration per se. My objection is to the way the registration is being done - as a fund raising scheme at our expense.

Thread: Balsa usa eaa biplane
09/06/2019 18:11:54

Available here for a few £

Thread: Interesting reply from email to Richard Moriarty, CAA
08/06/2019 13:42:28
Posted by Nigel Heather on 07/06/2019 20:41:44:

Don’t see it as taxation, just collecting funds to cover their mis-management of budget.

Isn't that the very definition of taxation?

07/06/2019 11:21:55
Posted by Nigel Heather on 07/06/2019 11:09:54:
Posted by MattyB on 07/06/2019 10:45:48:

What a sorry state of affairs. Based on the summary of the conversation with Baroness Vere I cannot now see a way forward in the negotiations that will deliver a result that the memberships of the national associations are happy with. That leaves only the following options really...

  1. The Associations hold their noses and concede defeat, asking their members to register - Likely to result in huge drop in membership for them and increased rates of uninsured flying. Small numbers of members/ex-members refuse to register, but not at a scale that could force a rethink in the DfT. The registration fee creeps/leaps up over time and membership and participation drops to ever lower levels.
  2. The Associations dig in and tell their members not to register as operators, but continue flying - Doing so would make the associations and their members a target; a club site or two would probably be targeted by law enforcement in order to mount a test prosecution. The associations would need to consult with their insurers and legal counsel before going this route, and would need to support any members prosecuted. Potentially dangerous for all involved, but might force a rethink at the DfT over time, though I doubt it (primarily because this is nt really about safety; they are more interested in the jobs that go with making the UK a global SUAS leader and freeing up the airspace for drone deliveries and the tax revenue that could go with them).
  3. The Associations dig in and tell their members not to register as operators, but to suspend flying - Less risky, but probably pointless. Yes we would be denying the government a source of revenue, but £2.8m is such small beer in political terms they may just consider it a price worth paying to reduce recreational use of the airspace below 1k feet. Could also cause a drop in membership of the associations similar to option 1.
  4. The Associations mount a proactive legal challenge (could be combined with options 2 or 3) - Costly and time consuming, but it may be the only route the government would take heed of. Not sure how likely a postive result is though; the EASA statements around making exceptions for those oeprating within the framework of established clubs are I believe only recommendations at this stage, not law. Financially risky, and probably not that likely to succeed (but that is a complete guess).

So, in summary.... angrycrying

Edited By MattyB on 07/06/2019 10:51:59

Or if the associations or the clubs really want to oppose this they could elect to be operators. They could charge us nothing, or £5 or £10 or £16.50 - I would gladly give any of those amounts to the BMFA or the club.

The association/club could stipulate that that our aircraft must contain our pilots registration number, name and contact details as well as any operator code. And that in doing so we accept responsibility for any illegal use.

As examples:

BMFA as operator, charging £5 per annum. Income = 36,000 x £5, Spend = 1 x £16.50, Profit = £179,983.50

Club (70 members) as operator, charging £16.50 per annum. Income = 70 x £16.50, Spend = 1x £16.50, Profit = £1,138.50

Cheers,

Nigel

Edited By Nigel Heather on 07/06/2019 11:15:10

That's how I see it working Nigel. Everyone's a winner - including the DfT once they get over the initial embarrassment of wasting so much money.

06/06/2019 13:03:41
Posted by Jason-I on 06/06/2019 12:13:46:
Posted by john stones 1 on 06/06/2019 11:17:06:

If we withhold payement, we can't fly, if we can't fly, we get no members, what happens to our club ? who pays for the grass cuts, and maintenance. Show me "The plan".

Register as a pilot (free): Check

Take the stupid test (free) to 'prove' you are safe: Check

Put your contact details on all your models so plod can track you down: Check

Insurance through BMFA: Check

Fly at a permitted location: Check

Then go fly. You are registered and you can be tracked down by the details on your model. That's compliant enough with the law for me. Anything else is just an unfair tax that should not be entertained.

Edited By Jason-I on 06/06/2019 12:14:02

Sounds like a plan to me.

06/06/2019 11:06:37
Posted by Peter Christy on 06/06/2019 10:58:40:

I'm not sure about anything becoming enshrined. Gazing in to my crystal ball, I see similarities between the drone fad and CB. For a few years it will be a nuisance, but then it will disappear from sight. At that point, the registration scheme will collapse under its own financial weight - just like CB licenses, and indeed RC transmitter licenses, did.

How long this will take is anybody's guess, but I would put my money on being back where we are now - more or less - within 5 years.

--

Pete

Not if over 40,000 doses of £16.50 (or much more) of revenue is being collected each year.

03/06/2019 11:22:43

I get the same impression Nigel, but it would be nice to hear from someone who knows what went off at the meetings, rather than drawing our own conclusions from the little information we actually have.

02/06/2019 20:32:46
Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 30/05/2019 12:45:56:

Latest from the BMFA CEO at **LINK**

Representatives of the UK Model Flying Associations met with the CAA yesterday afternoon (29th May 2019).

The meeting was constructive, but without any real breakthrough to report at this stage.

The CAA were only able to discuss potential options within the restrictive policy framework dictated by the DfT. One such option is the possibility of the Associations registering as Operators, which would save members paying the £16.50 registration fee, but all members flying any model over 250g would still be required to take a free CAA theory test every 3 years. There is however further exploratory work to do on this option before it could be confirmed as a viable way forward and it would still be far from satisfactory.

Model Flying is now within the CAA’s Small Unmanned Aircraft Unit rather than their General Aviation Unit and there was an undertaking to meet on a quarterly basis, rather than on the current annual basis. The Associations welcome this development, especially at the present time.

There remains a great deal of detail to resolve before the 2018 ANO changes come into effect at the end of November this year and this issue is compounded by the six months lost due to the DfT/CAA ‘stone walling’ us since November 2018. It is regrettable that it has taken the direct action of our members to force the resumption of meaningful dialogue.

We would like to thank all those members who have supported our campaign so far, the CAA has received approximately 6000 responses from model association members. If you have not yet responded to the consultation, please do so before it closes next week. Full details of the consultation and how to respond can be found here: **LINK**

A considerable number of members have expressed their dissatisfaction at the ‘standard’ response they have received from the CAA which in many cases does little or nothing to address their specific concerns or indicate that they have even been read. We would encourage any member dissatisfied with the response they have received to raise a formal complaint through the CAA’s complaints process (rather than as a personal communication to the CEO), details of which you can find here:**LINK**.

Similarly, a significant number of members have also expressed their dissatisfaction with the ‘standard’ response they have received from the DfT and in this instance we would encourage members to re-submit their concerns with a complaint that they have not been adequately addressed. Details of how to submit a complaint to the DfT can be found here**LINK**.

We will be meeting with the Minister next week, but for now our 'Call to Action' remains very much in place.

Andy.

Thanks for the continued updates. I (and presumably all BMFA members) have now received the same information in the form of an email. I have a question regarding the final sentence in the third paragraph, which I have emboldened.

Could you please confirm which party has suggested that the option is "far from satisfactory" and why?

Is it the CAA due it not meeting the technical registration requirements, the DfT due to not providing the desired revenue, the BMFA due to the additional responsibilities or another reason I haven't thought about? To me, this seems to be the sensible way forward at minimum cost to the tax payer.

Thread: 26 degrees in London? Not Here It Isn't.........
02/06/2019 11:16:23
Posted by Percy Verance on 02/06/2019 10:07:07:

I guess it's a trade off we Northeners just have to accept Ken. Mind you, I've visited London several times, and there's no way I could live there. It's frightening.........a different world. For one the traffic is horrendous. In my village, you often see a couple of locals stood in the middle of the road having a natter, because that's where they happened to meet......

Edited By Percy Verance on 02/06/2019 10:10:04

Aye, they even have pavements down South, so that you don't need to walk in the middle of the road wink

Thread: Poll for who intends to register.
18/05/2019 09:43:52

May I suggest that rather than threatening to register, which is obviously deliberately breaking the law, it might be better to register as a flier and append your BMFA / LMA membership number or your name and address to any models you fly. That way you are at least making your models traceable to YOU, which after all is what the new legislation is all about. It would be easier to argue with plod that you are not against registration, but are against paying for someone else to benefit.

edit - can't see the point of having a poll.

Edited By Gary Manuel on 18/05/2019 09:47:19

Thread: Bec for twin EDF?
16/05/2019 10:57:41

.

Edited By Gary Manuel on 16/05/2019 10:59:27

Thread: IT help required please
15/05/2019 13:07:01

The SD card could be formatted in a format that your old laptop doesn't recognise.

If you just want to get the photos onto the old laptop, try first COPYING the photos to the new laptop, then reformat the card using FAT32, then COPY the photos back to the card again and try it in the old laptop. Note that your photos will be safe as you copied them to the new laptop.

Thread: CAA registration consulation
13/05/2019 16:16:55

I haven't read the entire thread, so please forgive me if this has already been asked / discussed.

Would model owners who don't register until next summer be breaking the law by just having their models in storage at home and not flying them over winter? In other words, is it ownership of a model, or use of a model that requires the registration?

Thread: New- 2018 CONCORDE for 4x50mm EDF
11/05/2019 16:38:38

Very nice Tony yes

Thread: Aileron differential
11/05/2019 16:35:58
Posted by PatMc on 11/05/2019 15:30:06:
Posted by Gary Manuel on 11/05/2019 13:25:47:

Reading with interest. I never realised the complication of coordinated turns.

Slightly off topic but I have a question that has always confused me. On my transmitter (JR DSX9) I have the option of using aileron differential in the main menu. I have a couple of models that require aileron differential; a notable one being a Hobbyking Lancaster. I can't remember the exact figures, but lets say it required 10mm up aileron and 5mm down. Rather than using the aileron differential menu, I simply reduced the travel (end point) of both aileron servos in the downward position. It appears to work OK.

My question is, is there a difference between using the aileron differential menu and simply using the travel adjustment to achieve "aileron differential"?

By using the end point travel restriction you're reducing servo power at the same time making the control coarser.

But surely that's what the aileron differential setting in the menu does too - reduces the amount of travel used in one half of the servos movement. The only way of maintaining the full resolution (and power) of the servo is to set the differential up mechanically using servo arm / control horn geometry with full servo travel in both directions. Any setting used on the transmitter to achieve aileron differential will be at the cost of servo resolution. I just can't see the point of the aileron differential setting in the menu if the same can be achieved by limiting the travel in one direction - or am I missing something?

11/05/2019 13:25:47

Reading with interest. I never realised the complication of coordinated turns.

Slightly off topic but I have a question that has always confused me. On my transmitter (JR DSX9) I have the option of using aileron differential in the main menu. I have a couple of models that require aileron differential; a notable one being a Hobbyking Lancaster. I can't remember the exact figures, but lets say it required 10mm up aileron and 5mm down. Rather than using the aileron differential menu, I simply reduced the travel (end point) of both aileron servos in the downward position. It appears to work OK.

My question is, is there a difference between using the aileron differential menu and simply using the travel adjustment to achieve "aileron differential"?

Magazine Locator

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

Find RCM&E! 

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Slec
Revoc
Pepe Aircraft
CML
Motion RC
Wings & Wheels 2019
Gliders Distribution
electricwingman 2017
Advertise With Us
Sarik
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Does your club have a safety officer?
Q: Does your club have a safety officer, or is the emphasis on individual members to each be their own safety officer?

 Yes we have a SO
 No, it's down to everyone

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us