Here is a list of all the postings Keiran Arnold has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: Aero art|
Ernie Richard et al Yes the picture of the Oxford and JU88 is over Grantham, the JU88 crashed on the edge of the Village where I lived at the time (Barrowby) and one of the older villagers told me about it so I did some research and got my friend to do the painting for me. As an aside I have made a point of visiting the graves of both of the Crews involved.
Edited By Keiran Arnold on 17/07/2020 14:24:30
Here a Picture I own by a dear departed friend
|Thread: Accidental ejection from Dassault Rafale!|
I suspect he was lucky- the article doesn't mention that the Pilots seat actually failed to "eject" as the command ejection system was set to both, the canopy fired but for some reason the seat didn't
|Thread: Insanity seems to be setting in|
Blot bang rub (for those in the know 😉
|Thread: Merry Christmas|
|Thread: A new caption competition - winner declared!|
And then the sheepdog grabbed the fuselage between his teeth and was off over the hill
|Thread: Failsafe Unsafe|
I don't have a TJ6 but looking at the on-line manual there are 2 types of failsafe for that system "battery failsafe" S-fhss and "normal " both are described in the said online manual
|Thread: Happy 100th Birthday to the Royal Air Force|
100 years today
|Thread: AAIB Operation Of Drones|
If they had an exemption then surely they would have stated that in their report. In our litigious society how would an insurance company perceive the use of the drone. I would suspect their opening gambit would be "so were you using the craft for recreational purposes "
Edited By Keiran Arnold on 30/06/2017 13:47:38
I raised this because I was taken aback by the AAIB seemingly circumventing the CAAs rules. However helpful and no matter how profession the operators are they are not flying for recreation.
As a aeronautical engineering technician I find the credibility of the AAIB called into question by those actions.
Which is a shame as the actual use of drones is a useful tool to have in aircraft accident investigation.
the document linked is effectively reproduced in the Air Accidents Investigation Branch Annual Safety Review 2016, which includes the original statement regarding recreational use. Should the AAIB not adopt the police model for drone use?
My point is that it is not by any means recreational- whilst I agree that any means of assisting the AAIB is a good thing.
As the AAIB is a government organisation, the operators are being paid for their services, and as the end product is a government report then whilst the gain is not financial there certainly is commercial gain
Noticed this little snippet in the Air Accidents Investigation Branch Annual Safety Review 2016
"Under UK regulations, the AAIB is not classed as a commercial operator flying for reward so can operate drones at accident sites under the standard regulations for recreational users."
Whilst this seems to be within the spirit of the law, is this within the spirit of the law.
|Thread: Shoreham AAIB Report Published|
Tom, more likely that having received several major head impacts resulted in loss of memory. The report indicate the pilots helmet probably prevented fatal head injuries.
|Thread: Aircraft that are difficult to rc scale|
Matty find yourself a copy of Captain Lockheed and the Starfighters LP, a whole album on the above joke
|Thread: 1950s Tail light colour and style|
|Thread: Who wants a Warbird Replics Hurricane?|
Third time lucky!
K E I R A N
Just for the record you have incorrectly spelt my name too.
I'm thinking of the Shuttleworth Sea Hurricane scheme (might not add a hook though) Hmm then again
I would buy one too and would also pay a deposit if required
Edited By Keiran Arnold on 12/01/2017 12:34:04
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!