Here is a list of all the postings MattyB has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: Purbeck Sailplanes Graffiti fuselage construction?|
I am about 90% certain they were polyester, but you can normally tell by the smell when you sand it (yes really) - take a look at the guidance in this thread...
|Thread: Latest CAA Update|
A lot of potential supporters? Err, not really... If we aggregate all of the members of the national associations together that might be 45,000, and that's probably generous. Even so that would represent only ~0.07% of the population of the UK (based on 66m inhabitants), or ~70 voters for each of the 650 constituencies. Not exactly massive numbers!
This has nothing to do with any upcoming election; if it were we'd probably have seen more draconian suggestions being put forward to try and hoover up the votes of outraged Daily Fail readers whose xmas holidays were impacted by the (seemingly imaginary) drones at Gatwick. No, it's mostly just a slice of timely good luck (plus good work by the associations and their members in the campagn) that a minister has been appointed that has some actual knowledge of the space, and one who is prepared to stand up for the rights of a minority sport such as ourselves.
Edited By MattyB on 13/09/2019 12:26:55
This is a much more hopeful development and I agree the BMFA, other national associations and all who responded deserve credit. However we have to accept there is a big slice of luck in how we have arrived here. Had there not been a change of minister this would not have happened - responses to the “consultation” had been conclusively flat batted/ignored, with the path ahead defined in stone and not in our favour. We also need to remember that even if there is a favourable outcome in the short term (I.e. registration can be facilitated via the national associations at zero or very low cost) that does not mean it is guaranteed to stay that way forever. There are still lots of battles to be fought (most obviously the possible mandating of transponders even for VLOS operations), and from now on we are always going to be one prominent incident away from another potentially restrictive change in the law.
Still, this is definitely a day to look at with a glass half full attitude - we are in a significantly better situation than we were 24hrs ago.
Edited By MattyB on 12/09/2019 15:54:44
|Thread: Best/Safe practice or wiring electricmotor - ESC- On off switch - Reciever|
If you are using a BEC (separate from the ESC or built in) then a switch (yuck, horrible things) is unnecessary - just set up a throttle cut on your TX and have everything power up when you plug in the battery. The only reason for a switch on an electric model is if you have a separate power supply for your RX, which you can wire exactly as you do on any glider or IC powered model.
|Thread: Latest CAA Update|
The DfT and CAA have zero interest in whether pilots are competent to fly a figure 8 or any of the other manoeuvres in the BMFA tests. All they are looking to ensure is that any SUAS operator has proved they understand the LEGAL requirements they must meet when operating their machines so they can take enforcement actions more easily on anyone who contravenes the revised regs.
Edited By MattyB on 29/08/2019 12:08:42
Don’t shoot the messenger...
The DfT/CAA were never going to accept BMFA Achievement schemes as an alternative to an online test for one simple reason - they want to test the legally responsible Operators knowledge of the regulations on a regular basis (every 3 years from memory). Remember, it is certain they are going to evolve steadily for some time, probably the next decade at least. The BMFA certifications are a single point in time assessment, never expire and only a subset of questions are asked by a volunteer workforce of examiners. That would simply never stand up in a court as being a formal confirmation that the individual had proved their understanding of the regs as they are today.
|Thread: Hands free mobile calls|
I suspect this will be one of the many pieces of proposed legislation that are quietly forgotten in the coming months when the government finds itself with rather more important things to do (preventing us from running out of critical medicines, trying to stop major foreign companies relocating elsewhere etc).
|Thread: Commons Science and Technology Committee Enquiry on Drones|
Sorry, but that section of your post is incorrect on several counts. He was reported to be a member of the Little Harrington Club not the H&DMFC, but they have firmly refuted he was ever a member:
It has been widely reported in recent days that Mr George Rusu, who was convicted for reckless flying of a model aircraft near the borders of Heathrow Airport, was a member of LHMFC. Mr Rusu is not and has never been a member of this club, and we have good reason to believe he is not even a member of BMFA.
We are investigating how this was recorded as evidence during his case without any fact-checking, and how the media subsequently picked it up without verifying the facts as authentic with ourselves. LHMFC prides itself for good practice and safe flying of all model aircraft, and has done so since the club was founded over 40 years ago. We, like the nearby Cranford and Hanworth model flying clubs, have existed in the Heathrow area for many years without any incidents. We continue to encourage our members to remain diligent and respectful of other users of the air space, and to conform to the CAA and BMFA guidelines and regulations that help ensure we can all continue to enjoy its use.”
Because it's not really about safety - if you want to clear the airspace below 1000ft for commercial use every user that operates in that space has to be in scope. Yes I know you do not believe that widespread commercial use will ever happen, but as far as the DfT are concerned they need the legal frameworks to be ready for as and when the tech catches up; they want the jobs and tax £££ that go with that usage. Modellers are just a tiny group that fall within the category of collateral damage.
Edited By MattyB on 05/08/2019 14:32:14
It has been pretty obvious for some time that the “consultation” we have all participated in has been anything but; the DfTs conclusion on the payment for registration and the method that will be carried out (I.e. individually, not with any involvement of the national associations) was always known from the outset. Worse than that is the fact the registration model as structured is guaranteed to fail in covering its own overblown costs, meaning the annual charge per operator will have to rise significantly in the years after registration is implemented.
With this in mind I believe a carefully targeted legal challenge from the national associations is now the best (or perhaps least worst?) option available. It will be expensive and not without risk, but what is the alternative? Fail to act now and it will be much harder to do so once the fees inevitably escalate to levels that force people out of our sport. As has been pointed out there are a number of areas that a legal challenge could target the DfT to force them reconsider their payment model (registration itself is now far beyond the point of a legal challenge, let’s not flog that dead horse) based on the way they have gone against recommendations from EASA and their own previous reports and implemented in a far less sustainable way than in other EU countries.
The question now is whether the leaders of the national associations will take this view and go to members to seek to fund such a challenge, or whether they believe that itself would negatively impact participation (and therefore their own membership numbers) in the long term. To this point they have understandably preferred to negotiate a deal that works for all and delivers minimal impact to model flyers. However, faced with the evidence the DfT have no intention of doing such a deal it may now be time to change tack and fight back legally. They probably feel damned if they do and damned if they don’t, but given it will get harder to challenge legally the longer we wait and the more established the registration system becomes I believe the time is right to change approach and go the the courts. Unfortunately we can only ever know retrospectively whether that will prove to be the right move.
Edited By MattyB on 05/08/2019 03:15:26
|Thread: Interesting reply from email to Richard Moriarty, CAA|
As with most topics around registration we have been over this Ltd company business before - it was Phillip who proposed it then. Unless you have legal qualifications (I don't) I would humbly suggest that it isn't worth thinking about too much at this point - you can be sure the BMFA and CAA will be looking at it (and probably the DfT looking at how to prevent it ), and we will find out their recommendation in due course.
If the BMFA and other national associations come forward and state that registration via clubs or new Ltd companies is the way forward it will be an interesting situation. Without a precedent case to rely on will committee members be prepared to sign up to that responsibility? Indeed will the BMFA leadership? It's undoubtedly a risk, one which is difficult to quantify and (if it goes wrong) could theoretically result in prison sentences and/or large fines for the registered operators. Personally I would not be prepared to take that risk; YMMV.
Edited By MattyB on 29/07/2019 15:20:41
|Thread: Droning on at the F1...|
We all know that, but that won't be how it is spun by the likes of Baroness Vere and the Daily Fail; they will use it as more "evidence" that greater regulation is required. After all, we already know from her evidence at the committee hearing last week that the DfT are seeking to go beyond the proposed EASA requirements on electronic conspicuity (either that or she is chronically misinformed of what those proposals require - you decide...!).
Our friendly air minister must be rubbing her hands together with glee...
Edited By MattyB on 14/07/2019 23:04:00
|Thread: D****s - again!|
Britain’s Next Air Disaster? Drones
"In the wake of the Gatwick drone crisis, high-risk specialist Aldo Kane investigates the threat drones pose to UK skies and tests the new technology we can use to keep ourselves safe."
Edited By MattyB on 01/07/2019 15:19:42
|Thread: Is it now time for cyclists to wear an identifier and pay a tax?|
The good Doc seems awfully keen to hear/stir up others opinions on this topic, but strangely reticent about providing his own. Isn’t there is a word for that?
Edited By MattyB on 21/06/2019 20:03:12
What is your rationale for suggesting this? "If RC modellers are having to undergo an ineffectual and expensive registration system, so should cyclists"? As someone who actively participates in both these activities I am confident to say that two wrongs don't make a right - what is being proposed in aeromodelling won't work, and neither would it in cycling.
The difference is in the lobbying power available - cycling is a big participant sport with plenty of big name, connected participants, and encouraging participation is key to the government achieving it's targets for decarbonisation. Do you really think they are going to criminalise cyclists at exactly the point they want to increase it's uptake and invest in new cycle infrastructure? Doesn't sound very likely to me...
|Thread: Interesting reply from email to Richard Moriarty, CAA|
The government have extensive policies around how IT services are procured; I highly doubt the CAA will have led the procurement of the system. It's much more liklely to be a systemic issue rather than a one time procurement gaffe.
Yep, just the same old canned responses. It is indicative of the mess our parliamentary process is currently in that ministers can seemingly refuse to answer the question posed (be it from a member of the public or one of their peers), instead regurgiitating a stock answer unrelated to the question asked. Embarassing.
Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!