Macsgrafs
Active Member
Wont find out till Monday'ish but quietly confident
Jim.
Jim may I ask how long have you been flying RC multis? How did you find the test?
Ross
If you can fly one multi rotor can you fly them all ?
- Thread starter ZAxis
- Start date
Jim may I ask how long have you been flying RC multis? How did you find the test?
Ross
3DJIM
Low Down Hucker
Hi Ross,
A little bit about me, Ive been flying Rc for 35 years and have flown everything from control line to turbine, I fly fixed wing, mostly 3D and have done a fair few comps etc. I was also a BMFA Instructor for 5 years and now private instructor for 10 years, I also fly Heli at an average 3D level and now have about 65 hours logged on multi's mainly Quads and hexa's. I also worked for Phoenix flight sim pre release working on aircraft physics and fine tuning and for a while after release.
I am now a partner in a fairly new media company, spending cash like water (scary shiz!) and looking to the future....
I found the test 'Interesting'
And you Ross? been flying long?
Here's a little taster of my FPV 450 quad from an FPV meet a few weeks ago
Cheers
Jim.
A little bit about me, Ive been flying Rc for 35 years and have flown everything from control line to turbine, I fly fixed wing, mostly 3D and have done a fair few comps etc. I was also a BMFA Instructor for 5 years and now private instructor for 10 years, I also fly Heli at an average 3D level and now have about 65 hours logged on multi's mainly Quads and hexa's. I also worked for Phoenix flight sim pre release working on aircraft physics and fine tuning and for a while after release.
I am now a partner in a fairly new media company, spending cash like water (scary shiz!) and looking to the future....
I found the test 'Interesting'
And you Ross? been flying long?
Here's a little taster of my FPV 450 quad from an FPV meet a few weeks ago
Cheers
Jim.
Last edited by a moderator:
MombasaFlash
Heli's & Tele's bloke
I enjoyed that little romp.
Macsgrafs
Active Member
Thanks for the info Jim & the video, in fact I watched a fair few of your late last night. I take it since you have flown/do fly 3D you know the likes of Mike Williams, Steve H, Steve A, Jo & the others right shower that they are oops almost forgot the legends themselves...Tom & Lee
I've been RC'ing for 27 years mainly fixed wing until 5 years ago when the fiancee bought me a heli for xmas....total addict now. I still have a 88" 50cc SU26, a few foamies, trex600 & an SJ8 octo. Currently trying to get good weather to take my Heli B cert....was told the CAA accept heli B certs, worth a try anyway
Going to have to take the BNUC I think sometime next year, after I get everything running right this end.
Regards
Ross
right shower that they are oops almost forgot the legends themselves...Tom & Lee I've been RC'ing for 27 years mainly fixed wing until 5 years ago when the fiancee bought me a heli for xmas....total addict now. I still have a 88" 50cc SU26, a few foamies, trex600 & an SJ8 octo. Currently trying to get good weather to take my Heli B cert....was told the CAA accept heli B certs, worth a try anyway
Going to have to take the BNUC I think sometime next year, after I get everything running right this end.
Regards
Ross
Last edited by a moderator:
ZAxis
Member
Wont find out till Monday'ish but quietly confident
Jim.
Jim ...
What were your opinions of the ground school, its content and quality?
Hope you pass with distinction.
andy
3DJIM
Low Down Hucker
Hi Andy,
Well just got my results and I passed
, now onto stage 2 happy days.My thoughts on the ground school are that its a lot of info for a newcomer to the game to take in within the 1.5 days, It does give you a basic understanding of whats going on but tbh it should be a week course and cover everything in far more detail. Had I have turned up knowing nothing about flight/Aircraft/rules etc etc Im sure I would have gone away with more questions than I arrived with.
That said they are working hard to improve the course and from what I heard it is soon to be run in a much stricter / in depth fashion with maybe some online training prior to arriving for the course, I still have my part 2 flight test to go yet so I better keep quiet till after that
Regards
Jim.
Did you get the impression that this is on their own initiative? Sounds to me like the CAA have assessed the results/feedback so far and told EuroUSC to up their game.
3DJIM
Low Down Hucker
Ok
EuroUSC are a forward thinking company working hard on all our behalves to try and make what we do safe and progressive, Its nothing to do with the CAA telling them to up their game, we need to stop this hate vibe against eurousc they are on our side. They like every other organisation are constantly looking to improve and update the way they do things. They fight hard for us behind the scenes and spend a crazy amount of time in discussions trying to keep us all in the air.
I see plenty of people in this thread screaming 'rip off' and waste of money/monopoly, in fact it is not a rip off it is pretty good value, I bet the moaners could not run this setup and charge any less. And it is an ongoing relationship you form with eurousc and they are there for you whenever you need advise or help, not just take your cash and run. It is run by Pilots, retired pilots, ex raf pilots and they know what they are talking about. I learnt a fair bit of stuff I hadn't even considered but now I know I am glad I do.
They are not there trip you up or rip anyone off or running a shabby outfit they are there to make things safer and give you a good chance of not ending up in court by making you aware of air laws and your obligations to conform to a set of standards.
I am more than happy with the cost and training given and now Im able to move forward and work within the law
Jim.
Last edited by a moderator:
3DJIM
Low Down Hucker
Sorry, Jim, didn't mean to knock EuroUSC with that question - I could have chosen my words more carefully. Read together with the other stuff I've said, I'm simply trying to get to a full picture of the situation and the possible future. That's not to say that I'm all for EuroUSC - I'm not, but that's mostly because (based on experience elsewhere) I'm strongly against this type of activity/responsibility being farmed out to private companies. When learning to drive a car you can take lessons from a private company but the test is determined and conducted by a government official and the licence issued thereafter is an official, legally-recognised document which can be revoked/suspended by a court, inspected on demand by a policeman and so on. That's the way it should be. Now, I've already agreed that we're far ahead in the UK compared to the miserable situation in the US, for example. That's great, and we should be grateful - but that doesn't necessarily mean we're still heading in the right direction. I cannot see how this current model can continue for much longer - indeed, I believe it was never intended to: there's every sign that EuroUSC are conducting a trial on behalf of the CAA to help determine what should later be brought in on a more official basis than this "trademarked product" we have now. Your revelation that a major up-shift is about to occur supports that picture - that this new, expanded scheme is "Beta 2". That's why I was probing for your impression on the origin of this change.
After rebuilding/converting my flat hexa into a Y6 I do notice a difference in flight performance. The flat hexa would float. I would have to lower the throttle a lot to get it to come back down. My Y6 is responsive and throttle on descent is immediate. Do I need certification? No. Do I need practice? Yes.
ZAxis
Member
3DJim...
Good to hear you passed part one.
The best item from the EuroUSC ground school was actually the handbook. It should be released to candidates well before the course so they can arrive reasonably clued up. The range of experience is always going to be wide on these kind of courses so something to give a level starting point must be a good idea.
At the end of day, EuroUSC are still a commercial organisation and it is they who seem to have the ear of the CAA. What is still needed is lobbying of the rule makers from the end users. As a provider of safety training they are perfectly OK but as effective rule maker not quite so.
Cost wise, value depends your own financial situation. The majority of SUSA AP users have been one or two guy hobby business types and to them it is poor value. EuroUSC's major customer base is the more professional end of the spectrum for whom cost is not that much of an issue. They are in that hard place between the two extremes. A graded cost depending on the size of the organisation might be a possibility. Keep everyone happy. A smaller organisation handling only this low end of the market would be an alternative but as of yet the numbers interested in this does not make it viable. Perhaps this will change as numbers grow.
Anyway the major gripe continues to be the aircraft specific nature to the BNUC(tm) certificate rather than type classification.
andy
Good to hear you passed part one.
The best item from the EuroUSC ground school was actually the handbook. It should be released to candidates well before the course so they can arrive reasonably clued up. The range of experience is always going to be wide on these kind of courses so something to give a level starting point must be a good idea.
At the end of day, EuroUSC are still a commercial organisation and it is they who seem to have the ear of the CAA. What is still needed is lobbying of the rule makers from the end users. As a provider of safety training they are perfectly OK but as effective rule maker not quite so.
Cost wise, value depends your own financial situation. The majority of SUSA AP users have been one or two guy hobby business types and to them it is poor value. EuroUSC's major customer base is the more professional end of the spectrum for whom cost is not that much of an issue. They are in that hard place between the two extremes. A graded cost depending on the size of the organisation might be a possibility. Keep everyone happy. A smaller organisation handling only this low end of the market would be an alternative but as of yet the numbers interested in this does not make it viable. Perhaps this will change as numbers grow.
Anyway the major gripe continues to be the aircraft specific nature to the BNUC(tm) certificate rather than type classification.
andy
Macsgrafs
Active Member
EuroUSC/BNUC....reminds me of the TV licensing authority, or local councils issuing thier own summons or big pharma issuing treatments & not cures....it's all about the money!
I'm with Andy on this, too many big corporations having to much influence on the cost...the small guy (me) on the street can ill afford the cost of the course, as it is my fiancee works part time just to keep our family afloat.
Jim what I find strange is that you have a examiners cert from the BMFA...yet they wouldnt take this as proof of competence? The CAA do openly state BNUC's or equivalent experience.
Ross
I'm with Andy on this, too many big corporations having to much influence on the cost...the small guy (me) on the street can ill afford the cost of the course, as it is my fiancee works part time just to keep our family afloat.
Jim what I find strange is that you have a examiners cert from the BMFA...yet they wouldnt take this as proof of competence? The CAA do openly state BNUC's or equivalent experience.
Ross
Gary Mortimer
Member
The CAA want to eventually introduce a CPL(U), several years ago probably too early we tried to set up a group for operators that had sensible, useful training for fixed wing and rotary operators. A syllabus and everything! It was already apparent that a monopoly was being created and we wanted to break it. I have been in South Africa for a while, have they had many more fly aways during training recently over on the plains??
The CAA are very open to somebody else providing training and have asked the current incumbent to change the wording on their website several times....
The CAA are very open to somebody else providing training and have asked the current incumbent to change the wording on their website several times....
Last edited by a moderator:
Bowley
Member
Some cogent points there Andy.
Jim, no doubt you left with the impression that EuroUSC are actually a reasonable and amiable company working for us and pushing the industry onward and upwards and in are by no means in the business of fleecing people.
Now I am not refuting this as that's the same impression I got, however, what is said verbally is worthless compared to what is laid down in writing, I had many questions to ask over the past year and have addressed a few, and the answers have not reflected my impressions. which makes me suspicious. we need to see the certificaton requirements, currency requirements etc imposed and laid down by the CAA as it is for manned aviation. It is not ethical to have for example currency and requirement for annual retest at the discretion of a commercial entity. That is by definition 'conflict of interest'.
In a nut shell the CAA are offloading far too much on the private sector and I totally agree with Ross that a private company should have no part in the regulatory and legal structure.
And I dont believe that the CAA dont know exactly the situation. however if the CAA approve Euro USC's policies then they have laid down the law by proxy or delegation.
I take no sides with or against EuroUSC. I try to take an objective view but it could never be admitted that a the private sector was forming legislation on behalf of a government department.
Jim, no doubt you left with the impression that EuroUSC are actually a reasonable and amiable company working for us and pushing the industry onward and upwards and in are by no means in the business of fleecing people.
Now I am not refuting this as that's the same impression I got, however, what is said verbally is worthless compared to what is laid down in writing, I had many questions to ask over the past year and have addressed a few, and the answers have not reflected my impressions. which makes me suspicious. we need to see the certificaton requirements, currency requirements etc imposed and laid down by the CAA as it is for manned aviation. It is not ethical to have for example currency and requirement for annual retest at the discretion of a commercial entity. That is by definition 'conflict of interest'.
In a nut shell the CAA are offloading far too much on the private sector and I totally agree with Ross that a private company should have no part in the regulatory and legal structure.
And I dont believe that the CAA dont know exactly the situation. however if the CAA approve Euro USC's policies then they have laid down the law by proxy or delegation.
I take no sides with or against EuroUSC. I try to take an objective view but it could never be admitted that a the private sector was forming legislation on behalf of a government department.
3DJIM
Low Down Hucker
Hi,
You all make very valid points and many of these were discussed by the rest of the guys on my course, But I think in the not to distant future you are going to see the kind of change you are after. I'm not going to repeat what I heard but big changes are on the brink.
Jim.
You all make very valid points and many of these were discussed by the rest of the guys on my course, But I think in the not to distant future you are going to see the kind of change you are after. I'm not going to repeat what I heard but big changes are on the brink.
Jim.
Macsgrafs
Active Member
One thing thats apparent from this thread
1)We all agree aerial ops should require a certificate!
2)We are all very safety orientated.
Now certificate should really be to say you're safe, capable & know the rules...like a ham radio test. If criminals want to use MR aircraft for what ever reason...are they going to get a certificate??? Not a hope in hell. So when they say the certificate/approval stops others flying...then they are lying!
I can fly my octo with a camera underneath & take photos, display them all over the net, on my house walls, on my friends walls..in fact anywhere I want....but if I add value...then I'm a really bad boy!!! So what exactly is the difference??? Money & they want a slice of it.
Gary havent seen you about for ages mate, how's tricks? I am sure I was part of that early process....on another forum....rotor something, it was a long time ago
Just my views of course.
Ross
1)We all agree aerial ops should require a certificate!
2)We are all very safety orientated.
Now certificate should really be to say you're safe, capable & know the rules...like a ham radio test. If criminals want to use MR aircraft for what ever reason...are they going to get a certificate??? Not a hope in hell. So when they say the certificate/approval stops others flying...then they are lying!
I can fly my octo with a camera underneath & take photos, display them all over the net, on my house walls, on my friends walls..in fact anywhere I want....but if I add value...then I'm a really bad boy!!! So what exactly is the difference??? Money & they want a slice of it.
Gary havent seen you about for ages mate, how's tricks? I am sure I was part of that early process....on another forum....rotor something, it was a long time ago
Just my views of course.
Ross
Ahah! So is this the upcoming change Jim heard about or are there one or two more steps in between?
Double ahah! Exactly as I thought. There are still, though, multiple instances of very shady wording on their site. If they've been asked several times to change it then why are they apparently reluctant to do so? This is the kind of conflict that putting a private company in a regulatory position will create.
Gary Mortimer
Member
I have been super busy without seeming to get much done Ross! So should we re open the group to create modules and a training schedule and try and get some CAA love for it? This bit is important, it was never to be for profit, and as such would be a lot of work for obviously no reward, other than enhanced safety for all concerned and in some ways a little more protection for your business.
I have always though lots of things are international, modules on batteries, prop safety etc etc etc. So other places could use them if they spoke English.
Over to the floor.
I have always though lots of things are international, modules on batteries, prop safety etc etc etc. So other places could use them if they spoke English.
Over to the floor.