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

Member postings for Alan Gorham_

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
22/10/2019 18:14:17
Posted by Bob Cotsford on 22/10/2019 18:04:47:
Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 22/10/2019 17:49:29:

Only if you or another pilot operates them....

Sounds about right to me. Probably best to keep quiet generally unless we want the equivalent of SORNs brought in!

I did think about SORN! It could be called SOSN or Statutory Out of Sky Notification...

22/10/2019 17:49:29

Only if you or another pilot operates them....

22/10/2019 17:35:26

In my opinion, it leaves you in the same boat as everybody else.

Thread: PSS/Slope Soaring and the Law
22/10/2019 16:52:00

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
22/10/2019 10:35:47

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
22/10/2019 10:22:04

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
21/10/2019 19:51:32

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
21/10/2019 19:46:30

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
17/10/2019 20:54:04
Posted by Brian Stevenson 1

My 'tentative' personal actions:

I may not register at all. The law will anyway be ignored by those who are merely 'careless' and even more so by those who deliberately intend to create disturbance - IE: "I intend to disrupt my local airport but I think I should register as an operator or pilot first". It's a total nonsense.

Brian

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.

17/10/2019 19:36:38
Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 17/10/2019 18:49:35:
Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 17:49:39:
Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 17/10/2019 17:13:58:
Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 16:46:53:

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...

It doesn't matter what it "seems" like, I was telling you how it is.

And yes, it could be a can of worms. but it won't be. The 'club', which as I said is called the 'committee' long ago negotiated a 1000 ft height limitation for ALL permit holders, BMFA members or not, with the CAA and the two local airfields, Hurn and Southampton. And the committee has been assured, in writing, that this will not change.

And as I am not a member (and have no desire to be) but a permit holder I have zero influence on how it works.

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, [B] be tempted to propose that all users of the site be registered,[/B] 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.

My bold.

That's been the problem. the committee/club has sometimes proposed things that the Forestry Commission would never have thought of, resulting in more and more rules. though they tend to be 'irritants' rather than notably restrictive. But who wants 'irritants' in a hobby?

As for 'laws' the Forestry Commission had only ever been interested in third party insurance, more to protect them than us. They have zero interest in whether we are breaking laws or not, least of all aviation ones, having previously had hassle with the CAA over hot air balloons and a couple of RAF Chinooks. If we introduce more complications they might well think we are too much hassle too.

Toeing the line is always simpler. But it doesn't always give the best result.

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.

17/10/2019 18:34:51

You could try arguing that.....

17/10/2019 17:49:39
Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 17/10/2019 17:13:58:
Posted by Alan Gorham_ on 17/10/2019 16:46:53:

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...

It doesn't matter what it "seems" like, I was telling you how it is.

And yes, it could be a can of worms. but it won't be. The 'club', which as I said is called the 'committee' long ago negotiated a 1000 ft height limitation for ALL permit holders, BMFA members or not, with the CAA and the two local airfields, Hurn and Southampton. And the committee has been assured, in writing, that this will not change.

And as I am not a member (and have no desire to be) but a permit holder I have zero influence on how it works.

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.

17/10/2019 17:14:01

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

17/10/2019 17:04:55

I think it's Beaulieu too. Sounds like a storm of something unpronounceable.

17/10/2019 16:59:30

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.

17/10/2019 16:46:53

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...

17/10/2019 16:23:38

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!

17/10/2019 15:44:18

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.

17/10/2019 15:09:31
Posted by Brian Stevenson 1 on 17/10/2019 13:01:39:

ANO? Who's ever read any of those? I suspect very few. Certainly not the average 'quad' operator, who are the people who have caused all this hassle.

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?

17/10/2019 15:02:47

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.

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
electricwingman 2017
Pepe Aircraft
Gliders Distribution
Wings & Wheels 2019
Slec
Cambridge Gliding Club
CML
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