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: Latest CAA Update
21/10/2019 17:19:22
Posted by Steve J on 21/10/2019 15:46:28:

UK Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Strategy

"The UK's new strategy for harnessing the economic and social benefits of unmanned aircraft, by reducing the risk posed by malicious or illegal use."

Ohh whoopie, we are all soon going to be using drones as personal transport according to the minister. At least the £16.50 registration fee will be cheaper than road tax....

Thread: Ben Buckle Falcon Build
21/10/2019 13:59:16
Posted by Chris Freeman 3 on 21/10/2019 13:25:41:

Nice plane, they fly very well but the main wheels are very far forward which can make it hard to land as you have a lot of weight on the tail wheel, we built a double size one over 20 years ago and it kept on breaking the tail fin off in a ground loop.

Good to know. I'll make sure that area is strong!

21/10/2019 13:11:54
Posted by Don Fry on 21/10/2019 12:54:30:

Cheers. As an aside, the 100 watt rule does not REALY apply to the one speed free flight types. 50 to 60 is plenty.

No doubt you are correct. I'm trying to 'guess' the minimum weight battery/motor combo I can fit to balance out the plane and produce enough power.

4-max recommend a 5055 motor for this plane, the 4250 motor I have selected produces the same power as the 4-max motor, but weighs a few grams less. (both are 500KV)

21/10/2019 12:38:37
Posted by Don Fry on 21/10/2019 12:12:06:

What motor/prop are you proposing to use.

I've picked up a 4250 500KV motor:

**LINK**

On 4s this should be good for 900w. I'll start off with a 15x7 prop and go from there.

I'm hoping to keep the build light, with all up weight less than 8lbs (hopefully less than 7lbs), so aiming for 100+ watts/lb

If I am struggling to get enough power on 4s, I will switch to 6s as the motor can handle upto 1350W.

As a backup plan, I am planning on positioning the firewall in such a position to allow a 5055 motor to be fitted if needs be. (i.e. if the build is overweight).

21/10/2019 11:07:30

Components at the ready.

20191021_105546.jpg

19/10/2019 20:57:22

I've been looking at it for some time too. Not quite as long as you though! My wife must have been looking over my shoulder, because I dropped no hints, it just turned up on the doorstep...

19/10/2019 20:31:37

Build progress will follow.

19/10/2019 20:31:11

It was ordered online. Colin Buckle sent this nice personalised receipt in the box....

20191009_114746.jpg

19/10/2019 20:30:04

My amazing wife just purchased this for me as a get well soon present. smiley

20191009_114711.jpg

Thread: Latest CAA Update
17/10/2019 23:13:49
Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 17/10/2019 22:59:33:

Gents, would you be kind enough to cease quoting a post I've deleted for a breach of the C of C, please?smile

I've PM'd the poster with advice on how to quote correctly - strangely enough in much the same terms as your advice!teeth 2

Back to the topic now...

Pete

You must not have deleted it when we quoted it - otherwise we would not have been able to quote it! wink

17/10/2019 22:50:34

Before you start typing, click in the editor box and try holding the down arrow key until it will go down no further. Then try typing. Does that work for you?

Edited By Pete B - Moderator on 17/10/2019 22:55:58

17/10/2019 21:41:14
Posted by Peter Jenkins on 17/10/2019 21:20:32:
 

Jason

If you think there is a precedent for flying up to 400 ft over the land you own (not lease or rent) go ahead and test it on the precedent you quoted. I doubt you'd be successful. It would be of little use to those of us who fly precision aerobatics as we go up to around 1,000 ft with 2 mtr class models weighing up to 5 kg. I will still put my faith in the BMFA getting us to a position where we continue as we are (including the exemption to fly aboveb400 ft with aircraft not above 7 kg) than pursue a dubious legal precedent you quote to give us the right to fly in the national airspace. If the BMFA's advice is to register then that's what I'd do.

Jeez, I'm just throwing things out there. I'm not seriously suggesting you follow them.

Anyway, I'm with nitro. Lets take to arms. I for one wont be registering as an operator. I don't need no stinkin operator number......

 

Edited By Jason-I on 17/10/2019 21:46:03

17/10/2019 20:13:03
Posted by Peter Jenkins on 17/10/2019 19:59:04:
Posted by Jason-I on 17/10/2019 19:53:20:
Posted by

However, you are wrong about not owning the airspace above your house. You do legally own some of that airspace, it's just not clearly defined

Edited By Jason-I on 17/10/2019 19:54:21

Well, that's what I asked you to identify. Your statement, on its own, cannot be taken as definitive. What is the Act that provides this "ownership"?

Well, apart from the obvious fact that you mentioned yourself - you apply for planning permission from the council, you do not normally need to request permission from the CAA to build on your land.

There is however legal precedence in Griffiths J in Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Limited [1978], which states the following:

the owner has rights to the air space above his land to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it, and declaring that above that height he has no greater rights in the air space than any other member of the public.

So, it depends what the normal use and enjoyment of the land is. If a flying site has been going for many years, you can argue that this is the normal use of the land, and therefore lay claim to 400ft or airspace above that land....

You are also allowed to erect temporary structures on your land without planning permission or permission from the CAA. I vote we all erect 400ft high tents and fly indoors....

17/10/2019 19:53:20
Posted by Peter Jenkins on 17/10/2019 19:30:58:
Posted by Jason-I on 17/10/2019 18:16:28:

I guess if we erected a 400ft pole at each corner of our property, then we would suddenly own 400ft of airspace, and one could then argue that we do not need to register to fly in airspace that we own.

That action would be subject to planning permission as would any extension to your house either horizontal or vertical. If there were an airport close by you might be required to place red warning lights on the top of the structure. You mention the Shard. There would certainly have been consultation with the government over the impact on airspace use. Something like the Burj Khalifa would may not get approval given the proximity to the approach path for LHR.

I think you may be confusing development rights with airspace. In your example above, if you were in a town, village or city, and you got planning permission to install 400 ft poles at each corner of your house so you could fly in "your airspace" I would doubt that your neighbours would sit back and let you do that. Even if they did, it would be quite clear that this is not an enclosed space in which you could fly a model aircraft. I'm sure your neighbours would object regarding their loss of privacy.

Building a house does not imply therefore that you own the airspace above your land. Just think of the difficulty in siting wind turbines!

So, I think your proposition there is no legal certainty on ownership of airspace is, I believe, incorrect.

I was clearly being facetious with that statement. You obviously would not be erecting 400ft poles in your suburbian garden, I was just making the point. (and when making the point I was thinking about flying fields, my facetious thoughts did not even consider doing it in your back garden!)

But could you do it at your flying fields? You could certainly plant 400ft tress all around - there is no law or planning permission required for that.

However, you are wrong about not owning the airspace above your house. You do legally own some of that airspace, it's just not clearly defined

Edited By Jason-I on 17/10/2019 19:54:21

17/10/2019 18:16:28

I guess if we erected a 400ft pole at each corner of our property, then we would suddenly own 400ft of airspace, and one could then argue that we do not need to register to fly in airspace that we own.

17/10/2019 18:13:56
Posted by Peter Jenkins on 17/10/2019 17:52:32:
Posted by Jason-I on 17/10/2019 17:51:19:
Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 17:14:01:

You don't own the airspace!

Edited By Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 17:31:01

That's not entirely true. You do own some of the airspace, however the amount is not clearly defined in law.

Please explain what airspace can be owned?

Like I said, it is not clearly defined in law, however, If landowners did not own any airspace, then they would not be able to build any structures on their own property whatsoever.

Legally, 'The landowner owns the airspace to the height which is reasonably acceptable and necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land'.

To what height that extends to is not defined. However, consider the landowner of the Shard building in London. He clearly owns 1000ft of airspace........

17/10/2019 17:51:19
Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 17:14:01:

You don't own the airspace!

Edited By Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 17:31:01

That's not entirely true. You do own some of the airspace, however the amount is not clearly defined in law.

12/10/2019 15:34:33

I am a BMFA member, but not a club member. Due to work and family commitments, I only ever get a spare hour here and there a couple of times a month for flying. Therefore, when I do get an hour free, I like to pop to my local flying spot, have a couple of flights and come home. Part of the enjoyment of the flight is that I am on my own and get a little bit of piece and quiet out in the fresh air on a little used beach. The only people I see is the occasional dog walker (who all now know me well and say a cherrie hello as they go past). I only ever take off and land when the beach is completely clear of people, and if sombody walks past whilst I am airborne, then I keep my plane over the sea until they are gone. I have been flying here on and off for over 30 years. I have given many intersted passers by a quick flight on the buddy box over the years. I have always flown safely in this location, and there has never been any problems. The (few) locals that come along all seem happy enough to see me there, often asking 'what plane are you flying today'. It's been a great flying site for all these years, however, with the new regulations coming in, I fear I will no longer be in compliance and will lose my flying site forever.

I doubt club flying would suit my busy lifestyle. I very much doubt I could just turn up at the club every other weekend and immediately get 2 or 3 flights in and then leave, without having to wait my turn.

I hope the BMFA are also campaigning for lone flyers / country members as much as they are club members.

As the 2020 regs stand, I will likely lose my flying site, and with it, all hope if continuing in this hobby.

Edited By Jason-I on 12/10/2019 15:55:46

Thread: Commons Science and Technology Committee Enquiry on Drones
11/10/2019 18:34:53
Posted by Handyman on 11/10/2019 17:30:37:

Why not resort to "Civil disobedience" over this typical attack on our years old hobby that in the main has always operated safely and policing its own members. I started out as a solo flyer, but I always took out public liability insurance, and joined up to a club as soon as I found one in my area. I have never had to claim on my flying insurance, and always flew sensibly. The other club members would soon have told me off if I had not done so.

Because of the actions of a few Drone operator idiots, we are all being penalised. This is an attack on our Civil Liberties.They are taking the easy option, the D of T and the CAA. They know that the BMFA has the names and addresses of all its bona-fide members,so how easy to attack an easy target. There should be a clear division between the operators of drones and the Father and Son who have built a model together and then gone out to see it fly. I for one would resist any form of legislation from the word go. If they get away with this Big Brother attitude, it could mean the death knell of aero modelling.

We either take a stand now, and refuse to comply with their proposals completely and insist that they come up with some other form of control over the idiots who endanger aircraft and airfields by their stupidity. What else can we do?

Sounds good to me (as a lone flyer with 30+ years of on and off flying all with an exemplary safety record)

Thread: Shedly Protection
10/10/2019 21:59:08
Posted by Andrew Ray on 10/10/2019 21:28:40:

I use Creocote

Edited By Andrew Ray on 10/10/2019 21:29:08

However, that has no preservative qualities, so does not cut the mustard. So we are back to square one. The agricultural dealer sound promising....

Magazine Locator

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

Find RCM&E! 

Support Our Partners
Pepe Aircraft
Gliders Distribution
CML
Wings & Wheels 2019
electricwingman 2017
Slec
Cambridge Gliding Club
Advertise With Us
Sarik
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Do you use a throttle kill switch?
Q: This refers to electric-powered models but do you use a throttle kill switch?

 Yes
 No
 Sometimes
 Rarely

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us