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

Member postings for Jason-I

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

Thread: Giving up
10/07/2019 19:38:15
Posted by Gary Manuel on 10/07/2019 11:37:03:

Love it Brian.

Even made the missus chuckle when I read it to her.

Made my missus laugh too!

- and you've made my sides hurt.......

Thread: More regulation
08/07/2019 21:03:13

I watched that video a few days ago in full. I found it very informative / enlightening (but not necessarily in a good way). Don't understand why people are criticising it?

Thread: Where to fly?
07/07/2019 17:12:59

Where can one find 'common land' that isn't teaming with people or fenced off?

Thread: Interesting reply from email to Richard Moriarty, CAA
05/07/2019 10:45:15

Have just raised another complaint with the CAA - complaining about 2 members of CAA staff who fail to supply requested information. Lets see how the respond to that!

05/07/2019 10:25:05

Just had an email from the CAA complaints dept. I was gobsmacked, and not in a good way.

All of the complaints we have raised with the CAA have been in vain. They are not going to consider them, and they will not even appear on their statistics!

See email below for explanation (this was in response to my most recent complaint)....

Dear Jason

Thank you for your email of 4 July 2019, regarding your correspondence in relation to the UK’s drone registration and education scheme (DRES) and the response that your MP, Mr Esterson, received.

The correct platform by which members of the model flying and drone community were able to make their opinions and views known was through the consultation. I note that you have done this. All comments are being considered collectively rather than responding to individual points. For this reason, we will not be handling comments outside of this process and, given we treat as a complaint any expression of dissatisfaction with our service which calls for a response, and a consultation does not constitute a service, we do not intend to refer you into the formal complaints process.

Once the outcome of the consultation has been established, a dedicated campaign will be conducted to update members of the model flying community and the BMFA.

Kind regards,

Thread: Switching Brand
29/06/2019 19:59:16
Posted by John Tee on 20/06/2019 15:09:09:

Jason- I. Do you need a channel to reverse a throttle? Surely this can be done on the appropriate channel reversing of the channel used for the second throttle.

John

Yes, a second channel is necessary. The reverse function is a seperate channel on the esc which makes the motor spin backwards (for reversing the plane).

Reversing the throttle on the transmitter will just make the zero throttle stick position be the full throttle setting and vice versa.

The speed controller has 2 seperate servo leads - one is the normal proportional channel for 'amount of throttle' and one is for direction of rotation.

20/06/2019 11:55:27
Posted by Peter Miller on 20/06/2019 10:56:06:

I always wonder how people can use 12 channels. We have club members with 12 channel Txs. They have never managed to use more that 6. I can see possibly using 7. In my case that would be to make the pilot gesticulate extremely rude gestures as I couldn't think of anything else.

I thought that when I purchased my 9 channel tx, however, I am now finding myself short of channels.

For example, my wife brought me an avios bushmule:

**LINK**

It's only a simple foamy (with no retracts), but channels quickly got swallowed up, particularly with differential throttle and aileron. Here's what I need:

1. Left throttle

2. Right throttle

3. Left Aileron

4. Right Aileron

5. Rudder

6. Elevator

7. Flaps

8. Cargo door

9. Throttle reverse

10. Flight controller mode

11. Flight controller master gain

So 9 channels without a flight controller, or 11 channels with the controller.

Now imagine adding FPV with a pan and tilt camera.......

Thread: Hello from Africa
14/06/2019 11:52:04

Howzit,

Welcome from a sunny & drying out Liverpool. I lived near you in Springs many, many years ago.

Thread: Interesting reply from email to Richard Moriarty, CAA
12/06/2019 20:02:03
Posted by Peter Christy on 12/06/2019 19:44:02:

As I've said repeatedly, I don't believe the CAA is responsible for this mess. They have been *instructed* to do this by the DfT, and have to do what the boss says. Even when the boss is an incompetent prat like Grayling!

The one thing Grayling is good at is getting others to take the blame for his failings (eg: the railway timetables cock-up). This time he has lined up *two* lines of defence: the CAA, and then Baroness Vere as a backup!

Perhaps he has learned something after the Brexit ferries scandal after all.......

--

Pete

The CAA might not be responsible for the scheme overall, however they have had a hand in the procurement of an overly expensive system from ripoffwebsites.com

They could at least answer the questions I have asked relating to the costs of the system.

12/06/2019 19:53:41
Posted by Percy Verance on 12/06/2019 19:38:11:

I fear you may risk writer's cramp Jason........

I think you might be right!

12/06/2019 19:24:56
Posted by Steve J on 12/06/2019 18:08:30:

CAA had a total of 178 complaints in '16/17 and 131 in '17/18. I wonder what the number for '19/20 will be? smiley

Steve

2 from me already, and many, many more to come from me unless they answer my questions.

I don't understand why they cannot just answer the questions. I know I won't like the answers, but they could at least have the courtesy to answer them

12/06/2019 19:22:05

Had a reply to my complaint to the department for transport today too. The standard dross (see extract below). As per my post above, they too have no answered a single one of my questions.

Complaint #2 to the DfT has now been raised......

The drone registration scheme is a top priority for the Government. It is just one measure in a package to address the safety and security challenges unmanned aircraft pose and will help enforcement agencies to tackle the misuse of such aircraft, alongside further Police powers to be introduced in the forthcoming Drones Bill. Registration and testing are also European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) requirements as part of the forthcoming regulation on the operation of unmanned aircrafts (UAs) in the EU.

12/06/2019 19:18:43

My latest reply from the CAA below. My original email to them have 15 specific questions, several of which were directly related to the costing and selection of the registration system. They have not answered a single one of my questions, Complaint #2 has now been raised.

We acknowledge receipt of your further correspondence in connection with the UK’s drone registration and education system (DRES).

As previously advised you may wish to contact the Government (Department for Transport (DfT)) around the wider aspects of the scheme (beyond the charge) and what it encompasses. You can still do this at**LINK**.

The CAA is now considering the responses to the consultation on the charge for the scheme, which closed on 7 July 2019, to make a final decision on the Drone Registration Scheme charges in July 2019.

Further information on the Drone Registration Scheme will be communicated to the public from September 2019 through a dedicated campaign.

06/06/2019 21:30:23
Posted by Steve J on 06/06/2019 20:35:19:

Posted by Jason-I on 06/06/2019 19:56:16:

But I have held my hands up and taken responsibility, so its a non issue.

May I suggest that you have a look at the ANO (article 94D). The remote pilot has an obligation to make sure that operator is registered and their number is on the SUA.

Steve

Yep, and I'll still be happy to argue my case in court that I have satisfied the law by being a responsible registered pilot and putting the operators (my) contact details on the craft. Not that plod is ever going to take any notice of me whatsoever flying safely and keeping myself to myself.

06/06/2019 19:56:16
Posted by Nigel Heather on 06/06/2019 19:43:13:
Posted by Jason-I on 06/06/2019 19:31:05:
Posted by Nigel Heather on 06/06/2019 19:24:14:
Posted by Jason-I on 06/06/2019 19:10:47:

To my mind, my method is not going to break any laws.

Registering as a pilot proves that I am who I say I am. It proves I can pass the test and am therefore safe to fly.

I already have my contact details on all my models, so I don't need to register as an operator. All that registering as an operator gives you is a registration number to put on your model so plod can phone up the hugely expensive registration hotline to find out where you live. I have cut out the middle man here, and put my contact details directly on the model. Makes plods job easier and saves the cost of the whole hotline department.

But won’t the law say there has to be an operator. So in the unlikely situation where your aircraft is involved in an incident, plod will track you down and ask who is the pilot. You will give your registration. They will then ask who is the operator and what will you say?

Besides if I was designing this system there would be a one to many relationship between operator and pilot in the data schema. So you will not be able to register as a pilot without linking it to an operator. Not saying that is how it will work just how I would design the system.

Cheers,

Nigel

Why would they even need to know who the operator is - they have already found me, the pilot, who has caused the issue - which I would hold my hands up to!

I would rather argue my case in court than cave into this unjust hairbrained scheme.

Edited By Jason-I on 06/06/2019 19:34:36

Because under the scheme the pilot can be under the age of 18. I think this is the problem with making the BMFA or Club the operator because I think the scheme wants to hold the operator responsible.

So as an example, a 15 year old boy can be the pilot, but his father would be the operator.

Cheers,

Nigel

But I have held my hands up and taken responsibility, so its a non issue.

06/06/2019 19:31:05
Posted by Nigel Heather on 06/06/2019 19:24:14:
Posted by Jason-I on 06/06/2019 19:10:47:

To my mind, my method is not going to break any laws.

Registering as a pilot proves that I am who I say I am. It proves I can pass the test and am therefore safe to fly.

I already have my contact details on all my models, so I don't need to register as an operator. All that registering as an operator gives you is a registration number to put on your model so plod can phone up the hugely expensive registration hotline to find out where you live. I have cut out the middle man here, and put my contact details directly on the model. Makes plods job easier and saves the cost of the whole hotline department.

But won’t the law say there has to be an operator. So in the unlikely situation where your aircraft is involved in an incident, plod will track you down and ask who is the pilot. You will give your registration. They will then ask who is the operator and what will you say?

Besides if I was designing this system there would be a one to many relationship between operator and pilot in the data schema. So you will not be able to register as a pilot without linking it to an operator. Not saying that is how it will work just how I would design the system.

Cheers,

Nigel

Why would they even need to know who the operator is - they have already found me, the pilot, who has caused the issue - which I would hold my hands up to!

I would rather argue my case in court than cave into this unjust hairbrained scheme.

Edited By Jason-I on 06/06/2019 19:34:36

06/06/2019 19:27:08
Posted by Bobby on 06/06/2019 19:21:15:

Doc Marten 16.46.18 page 15. You Are Spot On. I did post earlier stand together or divided we fall, guess the later prevails. So in answer to the John stones and others here is my pledge. I will give £100 to a legal challenge if all of the BMFA/Forum membership do the same so we can mount a legal fight in the European court if required. I know my money is safe as houses, the meek and saintly will always ride on the backs of those who are willing to sacrifice. I have been a modeller since 1946 at 10 yrs old with my small knife well sharp by father , a small strip of wood plus carboard for wings and tail plane / fin adding as much weight to the front until it kind of flew, knew nowt about c/g glory days for me. I'm only a couple of years away from saying enough so I can live with whatever comes about, feel sorry for the late comers. 40000 x 100 do your maths international lawyer for that kind of money. Bobbysad

I would put up £100 too.

06/06/2019 19:26:37
Posted by Nigel Heather on 06/06/2019 19:04:40:

How about we all pay £5 to the BMFA in return for them being the operator.

That is an extra £180,000 per year for the BMFA to put to good uses.

Sounds good to me. The only caveat would be that pilots must put their own contact details on the model as well, so that plod can contact the directly (and not the BMFA) if there is an issue.

06/06/2019 19:10:47

To my mind, my method is not going to break any laws.

Registering as a pilot proves that I am who I say I am. It proves I can pass the test and am therefore safe to fly.

I already have my contact details on all my models, so I don't need to register as an operator. All that registering as an operator gives you is a registration number to put on your model so plod can phone up the hugely expensive registration hotline to find out where you live. I have cut out the middle man here, and put my contact details directly on the model. Makes plods job easier and saves the cost of the whole hotline department.

06/06/2019 18:17:47
Posted by Colin Bernard on 06/06/2019 18:15:04:

In my response from the CAA the letter states "Model aircraft associations or clubs would have the option of registering as the operator with their members acting as remote pilots".

As far as I am aware the CAA has been negotiating with the BMFA, LMA, SAA and FPVUK so to take the letter at face value if that were to happen then the CAA is happy to receive £16.50 from each association for all its members.

Taking it to its extreme, if all proposed 170,000(!) UAV users were to join one of the associations then the CAA would get just £62.00 in total!!!

This means that

a) they haven't thought through their costing model

b) recouping the £m's for the software is going to be even more of a challenge

c) if they actually are budgeting for this eventuality then people threatening to withhold from paying any registration fee is not going to worry them

They know full well that the association's will not take responsibility for each and every one of their members....

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
Pepe Aircraft
Wings & Wheels 2019
electricwingman 2017
Revoc
Slec
CML
Motion RC
Gliders Distribution
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