Originally Posted by
PDR1
The ANO has always applied to model aeroplanes - back in the 60s and 70s there were exemptions from the certification parts for models of less than 11lbs (later expressed as "5kg", then increased to 7kg) AUW, but the operation parts still applied. People who interfered with model aeroplanes in flight were still prosecuted under the parts of the ANO which are now in articles 240/241 of CAP658 - this was the part used in prosecuting illegal CB users because for the purpose of "...recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft" a radio controlled counts as an aeroplane.
And of course deliberately making an illegal radio transmission to interfere with the operation of a model aeroplane is (a) criminal damage, and (b) a violation of what is now article 240 in "...recklessly or negligently causing or permitting an aircraft to endanger any person or property".
But the most important part is that if you look at the map and see the respective locations of the two airfields, and then consider that in the 60s and 70s the typical RC aeroplane was between 4 and 6 feet in wingspan, needing to be flown within about 300 yards of the operator and under 600 feet in order to maintain visual control, you will clearly see than anyone flying that low, that close to the Nutts Corner airfield was clearly recklessly endangering their own aeroplane. That's why I simply don't believe the story. If there was a standard visual approach route that went anywhere near the Nutts Corner runways the operation of RC models there would never have been allowed.
Other opinions are available. But any basic consideration of the facts as claimed show the story lacks credibility and should be in the running for the booker prize.
PDR
Oh dear oh dear: you are again coming onto a pilot's forum without a clue. The flight path into Aldergrove for
military helicopters would have been as required operationally and probably well below 500ft AGL. I don't know for sure but
FED can give us the actuals since he was there, you and I were not. But I was flying operationally (seldom above 200ft) and have an inkling of what went on during the Troubles: dealing with a model plane operator with a penchant for flying toward military helicopters in those days would be much as FED describes. Any HF transmission by a military helicopter is hardly likely to be 'illegal' as mooted by you
You are (again) springing to the defence of toy plane operators with little understanding of the other point of view: my comment about the ANO at the time and the violation by a military helicopter further shows that you haven't taken on board that ANOs didn't apply to the military
