Here is a list of all the postings Peter Jenkins has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: New Legislation And Trainee Requirements|
Even if you cannot answer the "A" cert questions, you only need to remember what you have just read to answer the CAA online test questions and you can have the description page open in a window at the same time. You have to answer from memory on the "A" test!
|Thread: Protecting a plan|
I tried 2 florists. One was out of the stuff and the other said they wanted £2.50 per meter. So, I passed on that.
When I got home, I found there was quite a lot of greaseproof paper in one of the kitchen drawers, so, I liberated a roll and will use that.
Thanks for all the suggestions.
Thanks guys, some very useful tips there. I like the idea of trying the local florist. If they don't follow the "next to nowt" route then Hobbycraft seems to be the next port of call.
Peter - yes, I used candle wax by rubbing a candle on the plan. Having Googled tea lights I have found a supply.
Jason - thanks for the links. Looks like a similar cost to tea lights.
Robert - interesting that grease proof paper continues to be of use today 50 years after I first used it!
Thanks Geoff and Keith. I did wonder whether something like Fablon might be worth using but cling film sounds a much cheaper option. I decided to build on plasterboard on top of an old kitchen top so I'm stuck with using pins. As you say, glue leakage through pin holes was a major problem. I did also rub candle wax onto the plan and that worked well.
Edited By Peter Jenkins on 21/10/2019 20:46:26
Back in the 60's when I used to build from plans, I used grease proof paper to protect the plan and prevent the structure sticking to it.
What do people use these days?
|Thread: Latest CAA Update|
I shall now un-bookmark this post as it is clear that some on this forum will never be satisfied with a compromise. Thank goodness you doom mongers were not in charge of negotiating this outcome. Good bye!
Edited By Peter Jenkins on 21/10/2019 19:03:24
Excellent outcome, Well done the BMFA and the other model aircraft organisations.
Bit of a blow to the doom mongers though! Perhaps those who think the BMFA is a waste of time might like to remember what has been achieved by the BMFA working in concert with the other UK model organisations and might be less inclined to think that joining the BMFA, or other organisation, is a waste of time.
Having had a go at the on-line test, I doubt it would trouble any one capable of reading a short article and then answering some questions about what you have just read. Each section follows the same process so it is quite a benign test.
You are correct with one exception. The CAA gave an exemption to members of 4 model aircraft organisations (BMFA/SAA/LMA/FPV UK) that allows them to operate above 400 ft provided the aircraft AUW does not exceed 7 Kg and they are not multi rotors. Single rotor helis up to 7 Kg can operate above 400 ft. Or, as the BMFA CEO said, with the exceptikn of MRs it is "business as usual".
The DfT/CAA will have to make a final decision shortly if their proposed timetable for registering is to be finalised. I believe the BMFA/SAA/LMA/FPV UK will then put out a note to their members giving guidance on how to proceed. The DfT/CAA were directed to get together with the 4 model organisations to thrash out a way forward that reduced to a minimum the impact of the Drone Legislation. Subscribing to the News Page on the BMFA website will keep you bang up-to-date.
It is worth remembering that the changes to air law are to enable a way in which EU member states can exploit the market for unmanned air vehicles. The current focus on model aircraft size multi rotors is merely the result of some high profile use of such craft. It cannot have escaped your attention the hugely increased use of drone borne high definition camera shots in an increasing number of TV programmes. There are also agricultural uses (inspection of crop health), pipeline inspection, structural surveys, pollution monitoring, to name but a few, where using unmanned airborne sensors becomes economically viable in lieu of using a manned aircraft to carry the sensor. The military are already using unmanned aircraft for both surveillance and strike and would no doubt wish to use the UK for training their personnel in the use of this equipment outside the current limitation of operation only in a military range.
With the greatly increased use of such unmanned vehicles our already relatively crowded airspace becomes even busier and the risk of conflicting flight paths rises sharply. From a public safety stand point it is inevitable for there to be some impact on our activity. I'm encouraged to think that the impact on the vast majority of us who fly from existing club sites will be minimal. I might be wrong but we have demonstrated to the DfT that we have the ability to influence political leaders to make sure we don't get purely arbitrary decisions made by civil servants who have little knowledge of our hobby.
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.
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"?
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.
Please explain what airspace can be owned?
|Thread: Greetings from Spain|
Welcome Jesus. What sort of RC models do you fly? I have a 60 in span Bucker Jungman with an OS 91 pump in it. It flies in a scale like fashion but not very much these days as I'm well into F3A aerobatics.
|Thread: Latest CAA Update|
Are you serious Nitro Flyer or is this a wind up?
When you say the BMFA had nothing useful to say, just consider who the FAI asked to represent the views of the model flying community to EASA. To whom did EASA listen the most and carve out a space for model aircraft. Also, the BMFA are the clubs and their members. When you say the BMFA should do this or that try looking in the mirror. Same issue as in Clubs - no one wants to be on the Committee other than the usual few hard working members but a lot complain.
As for upsetting Failing Grayling - join a long line of others of whom he took no notice. Be glad that Shapps has replaced Grayling.
Cuban 8, beware "the tyranny of the majority"! One member one vote is great when members take the time to understand the issue, have the opportunity to debate the issue, consider opposing views and then make an informed decision.
There are 3 full time staff in the BMFA whose role is to deal with the day to day issues as well as engaging with a round 35 volunteers who form upour Boad of Directors - Council. How many of these volunteers will continue to give of their time freely if the membership votes.against their recommendations? OK, change the constitution. Well the BMFA is a Company Limited by Guarantee and subject to operating under Company Law. Have more paid staff = rise in subscriptions to pay for them.
It is easy to criticise the status quo - not so easy to propose a different and well thought through alternative. One just has to look at what is happening kn a larger scale.
We should all be thankful that the efforts of a small number of people in the BMFA, whose call to action many of us followed,has resulted in the potential for "business as normal" becoming a definite possibility.
|Thread: Better builder than pilot|
The solution to nervousness is to fly a lot and in increasingly windy conditions. Practice makes perfect is perfectly true. If you never fly on windy days then your opportunity to fly in these Islands is highly limited. AND, fly just one aircraft until you are really familiar with it and can make it go where you want it to go all the time!
I often see pilots turning up with 3 or 4 aircraft which they then proceed to fly and crash as they never get used to one. Once you have got really proficient with one airframe then you can move on to build up your repertoire of aircraft but remember that each one will be different in the way it flies and you will need to remember that otherwise the inevitable happens.
The best way to avoid crashing is to think about what you want to do when you get airborne before you get airborne. Think about what the aircraft will look like when you are performing the manoeuvre you want to do and get the control actions required clear in your mind. Many pilots give little thought to what they want to do till they get airborne, try out a new manoeuvre, get it wrong and crash! Think before you fly and it becomes a lot less stressful!
|Thread: Latest CAA Update|
i12fly - I think you may be being unnecessarily pessimistic. Article 16 of the EASA document deals specifically with Model Aircraft and is clearly of the view that National Bodies may provide exemption from much of the drone regs if they wish to so do. The BMFA, in the form of Dave Phipps, played a major role in getting this into the document. The clear intention is to allow model aircraft operations to continue much as they do now.
The CAP 1789, a guide to the EASA docs, picks up on Article 16 and states:
Another important article to take note of. Efforts to either define or exclude ‘model aircraft’ from the proposed regulations have proved to be troublesome to achieve in a simple and straightforward manner. This article is therefore intended to offer a sanctuary to the ‘traditional’ model aircraft enthusiasts and provide them with an avenue for continued operation, via the cover of their existing model clubs or associations. This is through the ‘umbrella’ of a separate ‘authorisation’ within the Specific category, which could essentially allow them to continue operating as they currently do (which is openly recognised as being safe), without being restricted by other requirements within the regulations which are clearly directed at the manufacture and use of the ‘drone’ type devices. The details of what will actually be contained within this authorisation will need to be discussed further.
Whilst under the previous Transport Secretary, it rather looked like this was being lost, the current Transport Secretary has apparently reversed that direction of travel. So, my understanding is that the issue in the last sentence in the quote from CAP 1789 is where we currently are with the DfT, CAA and the Model Aircraft Associations discussing how they implement the EU directive. The EU document clearly states that the aim of Article 16 is to avoid the implementation of the regulations contained in the directive to model aircraft. That includes electronic conspicuity I would imagine. The BMFA/SAA/LMA/FPV submission to the CAA and to the Select Committee presents the difference between so called drone operations and those of the traditional model flying community clearly and concisely.
I have some confidence that, with the guidance from the current Transport Secretary, the DfT will fall back into line with the original CAA plan of finding a way to allow "business as usual" for model flying conducted under the auspices of those 4 Model Aircraft Associations. Whether this will extend to lone flyers or those who are not members of one of those Associations remains to be seen. It may be that we end up with a situation where any model flying in the UK covered by the regulations must only be by members of one of these Associations.
While this will clearly grate with some, for the vast majority it will make no difference what so ever.
Much of the soul searching is based on the belief that we will not get a sensible solution from the UK Government and so what are the implications for us. That's quite different from taking the view that the full drone regs will be imposed on us without any relief.
I am confident that the 4 Model Associations have the wind in their sails under the new Transport Secretary and I believe we will shortly see the fruits of that work which may well be viewed as "business as usual".
Yes, I'm an optimist! You have to be if you fly model aircraft!
Edited By Peter Jenkins on 12/10/2019 00:06:35
Why would a Committee named Science & Technology get involved with a business issue?
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!