Here is a list of all the postings Alan Gorham_ has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: Storage of models in light of the new CAA regs|
I did think about SORN! It could be called SOSN or Statutory Out of Sky Notification...
Only if you or another pilot operates them....
In my opinion, it leaves you in the same boat as everybody else.
|Thread: PSS/Slope Soaring and the Law|
So it seems you have a choice: either don't take the online test because you already have a BMFA A certificate or greater, or take the online "unfailable " test.
Always nice to have a choice.
|Thread: Latest CAA Update|
Andy Symons (Club Support) and Keith Lomax (Treasurer) of the BMFA are both on this forum and have answered direct questions in the past.
|Thread: Acro Wot|
The more powerful powerplant you have, then the need for right thrust increases.
It's up to you to balance the work involved in offsetting the mount vs trimming the aircraft in other ways to get non-screwy inside and outside loops and vertical climbs for stall turns.
Personally, I'd do it.
Edited By Alan Gorham_ on 22/10/2019 10:32:56
|Thread: Latest CAA Update|
Some of us did write to the CAA during the consultation asking if flyers registration details could not be gleaned from the model flying associations, to reduce the amount of duplication of data. As far as that point is concerned, I'm taking that as a win.
I'm not quite sure what to make of the yearly fee when IIRC Mr Shapps asked them to look at reducing it below £5 was it?
I was ambivalent about the need to take the online test really. I would have taken it if needed but now don't have to. Which is nice.
Really the important bits are the exemptions granted.
|Thread: Size of battery & alternatives|
2-6S means it is suitable for 2S upto 6S batteries. You may have to look for so-called HV or high voltage ESC to handle 8S or up.
|Thread: Latest CAA Update|
You have never met me and are making assumptions that I am both a lawmaker by speeding when i drive and also slightly contradictory a police snitch.
You are suggesting that you may not comply with the need to register in the text I quoted. As I said you would be putting your "club" that you aren't a member of in a difficult situation I think.
You have also had a lot to say about how the registration scheme is nonsense, how you've never read the applicable parts of the ANO. I'm a passionate lifelong aeromodeller and it just seems we are being asked to do something trivial. I would not want my lifetime hobby damaged by frankly selfish and futile law breaking just to prove some kind of point.
Except it will be the best result in this case because if you don't you'll be breaking the law. I dont think you are going to get a great deal of sympathy on this forum for your proposed stand against the legislation. Its here. Many of us objected to aspects of it. It seems that it wont be too onerous to comply with and some small concessions are being made to members of recognised model flying associations. Deal with it.
You could try arguing that.....
It's excellent that the committee of the club have negotiated this for all users of the flying site. Rather than stating as you did earlier that you are minded not to register and thus will be flying illegally (although perhaps still insured subject to clarification) it might repay the committees action if you were to register and make their lives easier?
You have already said the the land owners tend to nod things through at the committee's suggestion. I think if I were on that committee, I'd be tempted to propose that all users of the site be registered, thus proving their legal status as operators and their knowledge of the law as pilots by the nature of taking the online test.
Then if you didn't register, you would simply be making it impossible for you to fly there. What's the point in that?
Simpler to just toe the line.
If you endanger an aircraft you are breaking the ANO, so shoot away.
You don't own the airspace!
Edited By Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 17:31:01
I think it's Beaulieu too. Sounds like a storm of something unpronounceable.
No Brian you are paying to register as a user of the airspace and we have a government who believes in making the user pay.
No you didn't make that clear. It seems simpler and more beneficial for everyone to be a BMFA member. For example, the BMFA negotiated an exemption with the CAA to allow models under 7kg to fly over 400 feet. That means that some of the "flyers" at your site would be allowed legally to exceed 400 feet and some wouldn't. Can of worms...
Brian - how can you know what has possibly been "inflicted"? Concessions are currently being negotiated for BMFA members due to their previous proven safety record.
At worst it seems like a small fee and an online test.
I don't know how you can claim safe operation over so many years while also claiming ignorance of the ANOs though...
Perhaps the online test will be a good idea to help you brush up!
My understanding on affiliation is that your club cannot be BMFA affiliated unless all the club members are BMFA members also.
I hope your committee members aren't relying on the BMFA committee members insurance as they might find it to be invalid.
I would hope all BMFA members have read the articles of the ANO that apply to model flying. they are highlighted in the BMFA Members Handbook and surely it is at least good practise to know the law?
As I said a few minutes ago, the BMFA are taking the stance that registration is a matter between the individual and the CAA. It would be an entirely private matter if an entire club voted to check their members registration status.
How do club committee members ensure that every flight made by every member at their clubs does not breach either the ANO or other local flying rules (FRZs etc)? They can't possibly.
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!