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

Member postings for Peter Christy

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

Thread: Interesting reply from email to Richard Moriarty, CAA
07/08/2019 13:52:58

Jeremy: Thanks for that! The line length is around what I expected - maybe a little more. I seem to recall around 65ft being standard back in the days of Merco 35 powered Mercury Crusaders, and the like.

The reason I asked is that if CL models are also required to be registered, what is their likely maximum operating height? With a line length of around 70ft, I guess a 6ft pilot would probably be just under 80ft at the top of a wing-over. (Also bearing in mind that a CL model cannot sustain flight vertically above the pilot!)

Just trying to gather ammunition to send to the Drones Committee!

As far as the point at which an offence is committed, harking back to the CB days, if the radio was connected to both power and aerial, it was assumed that it had been used. That constituted an offence. I would imagine a similar situation would arise here, although I would have thought it would be very difficult to prove an offence had been committed if it wasn't actually seen flying!

--

Pete

07/08/2019 11:40:20

A question for Jeremy: All my control-line experience is on models of 3.5cc or less, using a maximum of 50ft lines. What is the current maximum line length in current use? (I assume it would be for aerobatics?)

--

Pete

06/08/2019 18:16:33

That's very interesting, Jason! I was under the impression that ownership of land didn't extend to the airspace above it! Do you have references for that?

All the sites that I fly from are private land - mostly farmer's fields - but one is pretty much exclusively for model flying. That would certainly give me some wriggle room, and I suspect others as well!

--

Pete

Thread: Commons Science and Technology Committee Enquiry on Drones
05/08/2019 18:50:18

I gather he was within easy view of BALPAs headquarters, and it was they who shopped him!

--

Pete

Thread: Binding to orange Rx
05/08/2019 14:48:14

Cheers, Phil! I've never come across one and assumed that they'd been dropped before 2.4 GHz was legal over here!

--

Pete

Thread: Commons Science and Technology Committee Enquiry on Drones
05/08/2019 14:44:31
Posted by MattyB on 05/08/2019 14:29:59:

.....they want the jobs and tax £££ that go with that usage.

Edited By MattyB on 05/08/2019 14:32:14

Bearing in mind how good Amazon, et al, are at dodging their tax obligations, I think they stand as much chance of wringing any tax out of them as they do getting 170,000 registrations!

angry

--

Pete

05/08/2019 08:19:42

Well said, MattyB! That pretty well sums up my views, as well. Actually, I have no problems with registration - I'm old enough to remember when we had to have a transmitting license, and to notify the Postmaster-General if we wanted to fly anywhere other than the location noted on the license (not that anyone ever did!)!

My objection is to the unnecessarily complex, intrusive and expensive method promoted by the DfT. Baroness Vere keeps banging on about the principal of "the user pays", but if I pay, I expect something in return. Under these proposals, I get nothing in return - other than the knowledge that I am effectively subsidising commercial operators, one of whom pays little or no tax in this country and is already rich enough to have its own space program!

--

Pete

Thread: Binding to orange Rx
04/08/2019 23:00:55

Martin: Sorry, didn't intend to blind you with science! wink

The world has moved on a bit since the good old days of 27 MHz, although it has to be said that that band is now so empty in many areas that it is a practical proposition again!

I've never had a problem binding an Orange receiver to a Spektrum (OK, MacGregor/JR) transmitter, but I have had problems binding Spektrum receivers to Orange transmitters.

The original Spektrum system was called DSM-2 (OK, for the pedants, there was one before that, but I don't think it ever reached these shores!). However, DSM-2 was "outlawed" for new equipment in 2015 (though you can still use such equipment purchased before that date). It was replaced by DSM-X. Orange reverse engineered DSM-X to make "compatible" equipment, but it isn't perfect, and there are compatibility issues between Orange DSM-X transmitters and some Spektrum receivers (mostly Bind'N'Fly stuff, where the throttle doesn't work).

Some Orange transmitters are "dual-mode", and will do both DSM-2 and DSM-X, and forcing them in to DSM-2 mode provides a work-around for the problem.

All the cases I've come across involve Orange transmitters and Spektrum receivers, but its not beyond the bounds of possibility that it might also work - or not work - in the other direction as well.

But try the alternatives suggested above first. If they don't work, consult your local expert, and see if your Tx can be forced to DSM-2.

Best of luck!

--

Pete

Thread: Commons Science and Technology Committee Enquiry on Drones
04/08/2019 22:47:26

Yes, that's probably it Steve, and like you, I have trouble deciphering its precise meaning. However, it seems quite clear to me that the DfT proposals most certainly do NOT provide a "seamless transition", nor do they allow "clubs and associations to continue to operate as they do today".

And as Jeremy has pointed out, the words "should" and "shall" appear to have a very specific legal meaning, which implies that the current proposals could well be subject to a realistic challenge in court.

Frankly, I'd be quite happy to contribute £16.50 to a fighting fund to challenge the DfT proposals in court, instead of subsidising Amazon!

--

Pete

Thread: Binding to orange Rx
04/08/2019 18:18:01

I know that some Orange Tx modules will not operate the throttle on some Bind'N'Fly models due to an incompatibility between Orange's reverse-engineered implementation of the DSM-X protocol and genuine Spektrum receivers.

If moving away (as suggested by Don) doesn't work, try forcing your Tx into DSM-2 mode, if it is capable of it. This works with Orange transmitters and Spektrum receivers.

--

Pete

Thread: Commons Science and Technology Committee Enquiry on Drones
04/08/2019 18:08:30

Steve J: Well exactly, but you ignore the recommendations of the governing body at your peril. After all, they may well firm up those recommendations in the future. I'm not holding my breath on that one, but I still regard the path that the DfT has chosen as a dubious one.

Anyway, we shall see what develops. But I still believe that the BMFA are doing their best, behind the scenes, to get a more rational approach from the DfT.

--

Pete

 

Edited By Peter Christy on 04/08/2019 18:09:06

04/08/2019 17:03:45

Posted by Steve J on 04/08/2019 10:40:40:

In what way are the DfT and CAA not following the EU regulations?

Steve

I didn't say they were not following EASA regulations. I said the weren't following EASA recommendations - a subtle, but important difference. The recommendations were that (broadly speaking) members of model flying associations should be allowed to continue pretty much unhindered. This is NOT what the DfT are proposing.

Gonzo: Where has this "paid for test of competency" come from? Have I missed something?

--

Pete

04/08/2019 10:00:40
Posted by Steve J on 04/08/2019 09:04:58:
Posted by Peter Christy on 04/08/2019 08:01:54:

I recall reading somewhere that control-line flyers will also be required to register under the proposed legislation.

Control line models are tethered unmanned aircraft.

I have no doubt that the BMFA are working feverishly behind the scenes on our behalf. I am taking the silence coming from there as "no news is good news" at the moment, as it implies that delicate negotiations are ongoing.

Other viewpoints are available.

Steve

Re: Control-line: But am I right in recalling that they too are required to register?

Re: BMFA: I have no inside knowledge of what is going on, but seeing as how David Phipps took the lead in the negotiations with EASA - and managed to get a better deal than many had anticipated - I believe he will be working very hard on our behalf to modify the DfT's refusal to follow those EASA recommendations.

When you are in delicate negotiations, it doesn't help to tell the other side what you are planning! Ask Theresa May!

Time will tell if I'm right or not!

--

Pete

04/08/2019 08:01:54

Thank you for your input, Jeremy. Very useful!

Many of the members here started off flying control-line, and some still do! Indeed, I still have a few down in the garage myself, though I haven't flown them for a few years.

Also, I recall reading somewhere that control-line flyers will also be required to register under the proposed legislation. This makes the proposed rules even more nonsensical.

I have no doubt that the BMFA are working feverishly behind the scenes on our behalf. I am taking the silence coming from there as "no news is good news" at the moment, as it implies that delicate negotiations are ongoing.

Anyway, welcome to the forum, and again, thank you for your interesting input.

--

Pete

02/08/2019 22:22:07

Interesting! I wasn't aware of that.

To be fair, it will probably take him a few weeks to wade through all the stuff on his desk, and I doubt if our problem is his highest priority. In the meantime, he will just parrot the line he is fed by his civil servants.

However, if he still hasn't taken any action in (say) a month's time, perhaps it might be worth reminding him of this fact! Perhaps someone with an MP who is on side might like to prompt them to remind the minister of this?

--

Pete

 

Edited By Peter Christy on 02/08/2019 22:23:03

Thread: Interesting reply from email to Richard Moriarty, CAA
02/08/2019 22:16:22

Those are good points, Martin, but I think they are solvable. In the cases you quote, it seems that the directors were playing fast and loose with their responsibilities. However, were the directors of our hypothetical company to insist that all applicants must hold a minimum of a BMFA "A" certificate - and provide evidence that they do - then I believe it could be argued that the director(s) had fulfilled their obligations. They had ensured the pilot was suitably qualified, and the flight itself is the pilot's responsibility.

Remember, the CAA themselves have stated that they consider a BMFA "A" certificate (or equivalent) a suitable qualification for a commercial drone pilot (yes, I know!). But who are we to argue with them?

As I have said, if Amazon, the BBC, ITN, etc can have their drone pilots operate under a single umbrella, I see no reason why we cannot pursue the same path.

I think this is a very useful discussion to have. There will be potential problems along the way, but it is better to air them here, and try and find solutions, rather than in court, later!

And frankly, I object to effectively subsidising a company rich enough to have its own private space programme!

--

Pete

02/08/2019 19:27:46

The Air Navigation Order makes it very clear that it is the pilot's responsibility to ensure that the flight can be made safely. That would include checking the airworthiness of the vehicle. I don't see how this responsibility could be transferred to the operating company. If (God forbid) a BA 'plane crashes, the pilot - not BA's Board of Directors - is the one held responsible.

The aim of setting up a separate LLC is to avoid the situation of a club, or the BMFA, being somehow held responsible, though in view of the above, I don't see how they could be. However, I can understand club committees or the BMFA Council being reluctant to take the risk, however small. But a small LLC? Any financial penalty would be born by the company, not it's directors. And having few assets (maybe a laptop?) it probably would not be worth prosecuting. The only penalty the directors would be likely to face would be being banned from holding a directorship in future - not a problem for me, and I suspect, many others like me.

At the end of the day, if Amazon can get away with being the operator of hundreds of drones, I don't see why we can't follow suite!

--

Pete

02/08/2019 15:24:14

I agree, and I think it will be very difficult to draft a regulation that gives Amazon, etc, free reign and yet penalises others from taking advantage of the same rules.

What is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander!

--

Pete

02/08/2019 13:52:13

Gonzo: Yes, quite! I think this idea may have legs, but it will need to be vetted by a competent lawyer to make sure its water-tight!

Perhaps its an idea the BMFA could take up, in order to side-step any liability of doing it themselves?

--

Pete

02/08/2019 12:50:32

Even cheaper than I thought! Need to investigate the legal requirements first and make sure the idea is water-tight. Perhaps time to see if the BMFA can advise....!

--

Pete

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
Cambridge Gliding Club
CML
Slec
Wings & Wheels 2019
Gliders Distribution
electricwingman 2017
Pepe Aircraft
Advertise With Us
Sarik
Latest "For Sale" Ads
New Poll - Sticky situations...
Q: How often - when using superglue - do you end up with it on your fingers?

 Every time
 Occasionally
 Sometimes
 Rarely
 Never
 Wear rubber gloves

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us