Correct me if I am wrong, but model aircraft pilots are subject to Air Law the same as the rest of us and in particular Articles 166 and 167 of CAP393 viz:
166 Small unmanned aircraft
(1) A person must not cause or permit any article or animal (whether or not attached to a parachute) to be dropped from a small unmanned aircraft so as to endanger persons or property.
(2) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fly the aircraft if reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made.
(3) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must maintain direct, unaided visual contact with the aircraft sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions.
(4) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft which has a mass of more than 7kg excluding its fuel but including any articles or equipment installed in or attached to the aircraft at the commencement of its flight, must not fly the aircraft:
(a) in Class A, C, D or E airspace unless the permission of the appropriate air traffic control unit has been obtained;
(b) within an aerodrome traffic zone during the notified hours of watch of the air traffic control unit (if any) at that aerodrome unless the permission of any such air traffic control unit has been obtained; or
(c) at a height of more than 400 feet above the surface unless it is flying in airspace described in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) and in accordance with the requirements for that airspace.
(5) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must not fly the aircraft for the purposes of aerial work except in accordance with a permission granted by the CAA.
167 Small unmanned surveillance aircraft
(1) The person in charge of a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not fly the aircraft in any of the circumstances described in paragraph (2) except in accordance with a permission issued by the CAA.
(2) The circumstances referred to in paragraph (1) are: (a) over or within 150 metres of any congested area; CAP 393 Section 1: Part 22: Aircraft in Flight January 2015 Page 8 (b) over or within 150 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons; (c) within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft; or (d) subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), within 50 metres of any person.
(3) Subject to paragraph (4), during take-off or landing, a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not be flown within 30 metres of any person.
(4) Paragraphs (2)(d) and (3) do not apply to the person in charge of the small unmanned surveillance aircraft or a person under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft.
(5) In this article ‘a small unmanned surveillance aircraft’ means a small unmanned aircraft which is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition.
I don't know much about model aircraft typically found in the skies around Shoreham, but clearly pilots of any of greater than 7kg mass are subject to even more laws and restrictions as shown in the whole quoted text not just the bolded bits I think may be particularly relevant in this case.
The ATZ at Shoreham is I assume of 4nm diameter and from SFC to 2000 feet AAL. So on consulting the
marked OS Map location of Mill Hill, (Mill Hill is NW of the start point of this online map) may I presume the incident did take place in the ATZ or very close to it?
I think the following picture which I found on Google Earth is a picture, albeit with long lens, taken by rafal matula from Mill Hill during an airshow at Shoreham (perhaps someone can confirm the location it was taken from and whether this is the vicinity of the incident in question?):
Any real "pilot" and I include model and drone pilots in this if they are suitably skilled and knowledgeable and safe in the piloting of their aircraft would be aware of what an ATZ is and how aircraft might reasonably be expected to manoeuvre within it and under what control and what laws apply (in the case of models heavier than 7kg for example although we haven't been told how massive the model was in this case).
Whether or not the model aircraft was within the ATZ or whether it was more or less than 7kg mass is almost immaterial. And whether because Mill Hill is high ground overlooking the aerodrome the model aircraft was in fact no more than 400 feet above the hill surely has to be quizzed as safe for the particular location if the incident is reported to have occurred at 1000 feet (presumably 1000 feet AAL?). Nevertheless we know the incident was within the obvious proximity of an ATZ where full-sized manned aircraft take off and land and manoeuvre for take off and landing and train in the circuit. Seems to me to be a totally daft place to allow model aircraft to be flown if the model aircraft pilots have insufficient understanding of the risks and the law. The problem is probably that like all pilots, all model aircraft pilots are expected to fully understand all the law that applies to them and not just informal second-hand opinions of bits of it. On the assumption they know the law and operate within it then they are granted the freedom to operate. If they are shown to be ignorant of the law and its intention and are still blindly asserting their right to operate in risky locations then they deserve to have that freedom removed. That I think is the real lesson that BMFA should inculcate within their membership.
Full sized aircraft pilots cannot for one moment be expected to maintain any effective look out for model aircraft so the entire responsibility for look out and collision avoidance is with the model aircraft pilot.
Continued operations of the type under discussion here are surely another accident waiting to happen if operators (of model aircraft in this incident) are incapable of acknowledging the real risks of what they are doing and instead just assert that they are legally entitled to continue.