Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1655892
Nick wrote:C'mon lighten up! Treat it as a bit of banter down the pub, or predictive text :wink:

Nick


Nick, from that throw away comment it may appear that you don't take this whole forum stuff quite as serious as you should.

One therefore has to I assume you have a life?!

:D :D :D :D :D

Aghast from Aberdeen
Dave W, Nick, Ben K liked this
By Crash one
#1655914
Paul_Sengupta wrote:
Crash one wrote:I don’t have a problem with being corrected if I’ve made a mistake worth mentioning but not when it’s some trivial spelling mistake, apostrophe in the wrong place etc.


It depends. It can sometimes be humorous and fun if the meaning is changed. For instance I once, in my haste, typed "yolk" instead of "yoke".

Someone remarked that I looked like I had egg on my face...

:lol:

Mea culpa and all that.


I once mentioned runway 30—15 at Perth.
Folk were falling over each other trying to demonstrate their mental arithmetic skills.
Kept them happy for a page :D
User avatar
By Rob P
#1655916
For example, in New York City, there is a field in Corona Park, Queens, that the city’s parks department has specifically set aside for legally flying model aircraft and drones. But it falls within the FAA’s rule of not flying within five miles of an airport. When we tested DJI’s newest Phantom 4 drone in the field, the control software kept telling us that we were too close to an airport and had to land our drone when we flew more than about 100 ft in the air
Pete L liked this
By Nomad63
#1656704
Tim Dawson wrote:I sometimes wonder if people who react so badly to being corrected on spelling and grammar also react badly when somebody points out something in their flying that could be improved.

Personally I like being corrected if I'm wrong. It means I've learned something.


I sometimes wonder if people who feel they have to make snidey comments on the possible reactions of a complete stranger on the internet to an invented scenario, might have something better to do

and yes I do realise I've just done it myself, one good turn deserves...etc
Crash one liked this
By hatzflyer
#1657520
There are far more fekkin drones flying from our airfield then real aircraft lately .
What's more they can fly at times that we are grounded ( local council planning ) ! :(
By Colonel Panic
#1657587
hatzflyer wrote:What's more they can fly at times that we are grounded ( local council planning ) ! :(

Unless and until the planning restrictions are reduced, that sounds like a good use of resources. :thumleft:
By hatzflyer
#1658854
As a matter of interest I phoned the BMFA today. I asked the secretary (who took the phone call ) about the no flying areas including the no flying within 1 Kilometre of any airfield.
I asked if it would invalidate their insurance if a drone hit a full size aircraft on an airfield whilst being flown from that airfield. She assured me that the BMFA insurance would cover me. In fact she basically interrupted every question that I tried to ask and told me that I am fully covered as pointed out in their magazine. She kept referring me to their magazine. She told me time and time again that I am covered.

AT NO TIME DID SHE ASK IF I AM A MEMBER and she didn't give me the chance to say that I am not. However she did say say I am insured several times.
The " words " on drones from the CAA website is unambiguous and states drones must not be flown within 1 Kilometer of an airfield.

My concern is that more and more of these drones are being flown from airfields ( the CAA website refers to the popularity of " toy drones {my words{ " so if one hits your parked aircraft ( or worse still goes through your windscreen on take off ) will their insurance pay out?
Please can anyone tell me what the legal situation is in this scenario ? would I have to claim off of my insurance ? Could I claim for loss of use whilst being grounded ? :(
User avatar
By GolfHotel
#1658893
Tim Dawson wrote:I sometimes wonder if people who react so badly to being corrected on spelling and grammar also react badly when somebody points out something in their flying that could be improved.

Personally I like being corrected if I'm wrong. It means I've learned something.


Good for you being so perfect and for striving to be better than everyone else.

Do you pity those of use who are dyslexic and can’t be as perfect as you?

If you see someone with a physical disability, maybe a limp, do you rush to tell them how to walk properly?

Sorry if I’ve “reacted so badly” to your comment. I will strive to emulate your level of perfection in future.
Crash one liked this
User avatar
By GolfHotel
#1658894
From Wikipedia for those who care to know.

Dyslexia, also known as reading disorder, is characterized by trouble with reading despite normal intelligence.[2][7] Different people are affected to varying degrees.[4] Problems may include difficulties in spelling words, reading quickly, writing words, "sounding out" words in the head, pronouncing words when reading aloud and understanding what one reads.[4][8] Often these difficulties are first noticed at school.[3] When someone who previously could read loses their ability, it is known as alexia.[4] The difficulties are involuntary and people with this disorder have a normal desire to learn.[4]

Being dyslexic gives me some considerable advantages. Mainly my mind is not confined by worrying about unimportant detail. For many years it has been treated as indicative of a lack of intelligence or a lack of care. Fortunately now most people are more enlightened. But there is no question that thoughtless comments can cause offence.
Crash one liked this
By Steve J
#1658938
hatzflyer wrote:no flying within 1 Kilometre of any airfield.

ANO article 94B doesn't say "any airfield", it says "protected aerodrome".

In simple terms, a ‘protected aerodrome’ is an aerodrome that has an Aerodrome Traffic Zone (ATZ) established around it, and so it is already recognised in aviation circles as an aircraft operating location that warrants some additional safeguarding.

(CAP 1687)

Steve
User avatar
By FlarePath
#1658968
Is it right to assume ( :shock: ) that would mean when the ATZ is no longer protecting after the licenced hours closure of civvie airfields, irrespective of out-of-hours traffic drones can be flown ?

Or is a licenced airfield always entitled to the no-fly rule 24/7?
By Steve J
#1659043
ANO article 94B defines inner (inside the boundary fence) and outer (up to 1km from the boundary) zones.

If there is no one to contact in the ‘control tower’ (either because the unit is not being manned or because the aerodrome does not have such a unit in the first place), then you can fly within the Outer Zone, but you cannot fly within the Inner Zone (over the aerodrome) without first obtaining the permission of the aerodrome operator. In both cases, the 400 ft height restriction of Article 94A still applies.

(CAP 1687)

Steve
By chevvron
#1659598
Steve J wrote:ANO article 94B defines inner (inside the boundary fence) and outer (up to 1km from the boundary) zones.

If there is no one to contact in the ‘control tower’ (either because the unit is not being manned or because the aerodrome does not have such a unit in the first place), then you can fly within the Outer Zone, but you cannot fly within the Inner Zone (over the aerodrome) without first obtaining the permission of the aerodrome operator. In both cases, the 400 ft height restriction of Article 94A still applies.

(CAP 1687)

Steve

Musta changed recently then; as far as I know, drones cannot be flown in an ATZ without the permission of the A/D authority and even then the 'not above 400ft' applied.
I assume this also applies to RCM aircraft which have been around a LOT longer than drones.