Shoreham near thing!

[sunday driver]

I'm surprised this hasn't popped up here already.

Shoreham's not the only place where models might share airspace with us.
Not to mention drones with cameras.

SD

[Dash8driver1312]

I'm surprised the author of the article does not possess a functioning spell-checking software.

But seriously, don't fly models where they aren't allowed. The light aircraft was on the extended centreline on glidepath after all.

[Nige321]

But seriously, don't fly models where they aren't allowed.

The model WAS flying where it was allowed.

How do you know the full size wasn't at fault?

[soaringhigh650]

Flying model aircraft, drones or anything up to 1000ft on the 1 mile final approach to an airport runway is really irresponsible, even if a clearance was not necessary.

[Pace]

Flying model aircraft up to 1000ft on the 1 mile final approach to an airport runway is really irresponsible.

Mr average Joe Blogs who has bought one of the ready to go advanced models available who stands in a field probably has not got a clue about aviation regulations and may not have a clue an airfield is ahead or that he is operating this model on the approach.

the latest craze is these sophisticated models which are easy to fly and equipped with on board cameras which are a major threat especially to jet aircraft where such a model aircraft would act like a bird strike on a jet engine.

Birds have an ability to avoid with amazing avoiding techniques which the owner of these toys do not!
I can remember flying a Seneca twin at 12000 feet over the Alps and the screen being filled by an Eagle. I actually saw it collapse one wing to avoid hitting the Seneca.

These toys are a real threat and only legislation will stop some serious accident occurring in the future.

Pace

[Sillert,V.I.]

Originally Posted by Pace

Birds have an ability to avoid with amazing avoiding techniques which the owner of these toys do not!

Birds are also much better at looking out than many pilots.

[funfly]

As a keen model flyer I, and the BMFA which gives us our insurance and guidelines, have been concerned about the proliferation of easy to fly drones.

It is a fact however that despite our concerns and the fact that thousands have been bought by mainly untrained and young public, there have actually been few 'incidents'.

One reason is that model flying results in model crashes very quickly when an untrained pilot is involved so many will have disappeared from the scene.

It would appear that in this case it was a power driven model rather than a drone that was involved. Like all hobbies in life there are always those who disregard sensible practices and the law.

All flying, including model flying, comes under the rules of the air and there are requirements which apply to everyone. It's a bit like a learner taking a car on the road without practice or supervision, the risks are high.

In the light of the recent expansion of untrained drone flying, the BMFA and the CAA are publicising good practice guidelines and the position relative to the law.

[west lakes]

Interestingly a local field near here allows models to operate of the remains of one of the WW2 runways.
Full liaison is made with full size aircraft and the modellers always have a licensed radio operator with them to keep everything safe.

Perhaps other locations should look into this method of keeping safety to the fore

[sunday driver]

As a keen reader of Pooleys (and a former aeromodeller) I am interested that there are quite a few airfields that have an area set aside for model flying.

The two interests clearly overlap, yet I'm not sure how a model flyer would learn about the risks and courtesies of flying significant r/c hardware adjacent to an airfield.

SD

[Capot]

These toys are a real threat and only legislation will stop some serious accident occurring in the future

Yes, I've been preaching that elsewhere, although mainly with reference to passenger jets and the looming possibility of terrorist use of the drones in addition to the risk of some clown flying one into a jet on take-off or approach. But it falls on deaf ears, so we can confidently assume that nothing will be done until a few dead bodies sharpen regulators' minds.

And then we have, in that linked article, one of the silliest pronouncements I have ever seen, made by the BMFA after "speaking to" the member involved in the collision;

“The inquiry will take place, which may take some months, so until the outcome is known, we see there is no reason why we cannot continue to fly at Mil Hill.”

NO REASON! A model flown by a member collided with an aircraft. The enquiry is to find out how it happened and why, and having done that to make recommendations to prevent it happening again. Until the enquiry is done, no-one knows how and why it occurred. And the BMFA sees "no reason" not to just carry on as before. Thank God they have nothing to do with real aircraft safety, apart, of course, from "speaking" to any member who flies a model that collides with a real aircraft. Gosh, that's pretty severe; what do they say? "If you hit another one, we'll jolly well cancel your membership!"

[xrayalpha]

Quote:
These toys are a real threat and only legislation will stop some serious accident occurring in the future

and, from another poster:

Yes, I've been preaching that elsewhere, although mainly with reference to passenger jets and the looming possibility of terrorist use of the drones in addition to the risk of some clown flying one into a jet on take-off or approach.

Reply:

Legislation in general (like drink driving) may have stopped some serious accidents.

Here there is, actually, legislation already in place and the suggestion is that it is not working.

So the answer is not more legislation, it is more education. Or maybe more legislation that enforces education - like a warning leaflet sold with all "toys".

Regarding terrorism and other aircraft accidents (like German Wings), legislation was of no help.

It is the knee-jerk reaction favoured by useless politicians wanting a quick public "fix".

[west lakes]

yet I'm not sure how a model flyer would learn about the risks and courtesies of flying significant r/c hardware adjacent to an airfield.

You know, I would suggest go and ask at a flying club or similar, it obviously works here with model flying having been part of club fly-ins in previous years.
I even recall models being involved in an air display at Blackpool Squires Gate back in the '70s

[sunday driver]

Full liaison is made with full size aircraft and the modellers always have a licensed radio operator with them to keep everything safe.

This is clearly very well thought out and can be made to work where modellers operate on the airfield.
I know of examples where they operate outside the fence.
Also, many model flyers will be lone operators without the knowledge and support of a well connected organisation.
I can't imagine that legislation will cover this effectively.

(Sorry WL, I guess we posted at the same time. I can also recall spectacular r/c displays at the Coventry Air Display many years ago)

SD

[abgd]

Also, many model flyers will be lone operators without the knowledge and support of a well connected organisation.
I can't imagine that legislation will cover this effectively.

I taught myself to fly model helicopters a few years back. I'll confess I tend to fly them in my parents' field and started flying from a local park. One thing that made this possible was 2.4ghz radio equipment that means that you no longer need to worry about interference from other pilots on the same frequencies. With older equipment it was advisable to fly from a club field in order to avoid accidentally shooting down somebody else's aircraft, or having your own shot down by an unknown pilot operating on the same frequency elsewhere. Computer simulation also makes a big difference. It's possible to learn to fly on a computer then go out and fly an RC model reasonably competently.

The other big change recently, is the reduction in the cost of models and the sheer brainpower and dedication required to fly them. Balsa models that take 100 hours to build and require a fair amount of detailed knowledge to operate and are inevitably going to be restricted to people of a different mindset from those that might generally operate a prebuilt foam model.

One of the drone manufacturers has started to build control systems that refuse to allow the drones to be operated in the vicinity of licensed airports. But aside from this, I wonder how a responsible r/c aircraft pilot would go about finding out where it was reasonable to fly from anyway? The Heathrow boundary is obviously out of bounds but there are a lot more licensed and unlicensed sites that people may not always be aware of.

I suppose it works both ways - whilst flying down the Welsh coastline, rather low but within gliding distance of the land, I was a bit alarmed to suddenly see some aerobatic models doing stall turns a few hundred yards off my wing and coming up to my altitude. It was a superb-looking model flying site, well established, on the base of a former airfield. Not marked on my maps either.

Outside of powered aviation there has been conflict for a little while between foot-launched gliders and radio-control people, because they tend to enjoy using the same kinds of sites at the same sort of times.

[Nige321]

The majority of the posters above have made the instant and wild assumption that the full size was in the right place, the model wasn't.

one of the silliest pronouncements I have ever seen, made by the BMFA after "speaking to" the member involved in the collision;

What the 'story' doesn't make clear is that this was with the CAA's agreement, as you'd have found out had you followed the story back to the BMFA.

The BMFA have just advised their members that model flying can continue at the same site with the agreement of the CAA.

Further to the recent incident involving a model aircraft and a full size light aircraft which occurred at Mill Hill near Shoreham Airport.

The pilot of the model aircraft has submitted a detailed report on the incident to the BMFA head office, this has been passed onto the AAIB for investigation.

At this time all indications are that the model flying was taking place in accordance with the local agreements and in a completely lawful manner.

The location is a long established model flying site and model flying takes place with the full knowledge and agreement of Shoreham Airport.

Following consultation and agreement with both the CAA and Sussex Police, we have advised BMFA members that model flying should continue on the site at this time.

[LysanderV8]

The pilot of the full sized aircraft was not local and therefore probably not familiar with the situation re the model aircraft. Indeed as a visitor from Europe, it is possible that they were not aware at all of the model flying site

[sunday driver]

Any UK pilot with a current and updated Pooley's would also not be aware of the model flying site.
The airport website, however, does have a link to the AIP (click Pilots ... General Information...)
Follow the link for textual data (not the other ten links)
Then model flying is briefly mentioned in para. 4 (e) on page 8 of 10.

SD

[Wander00]

here in France many small local airports/fields have a model flying site with hard runway adjacent, often part of the local flying club. Not heard of any problems/conflicts.

[Jetblu]

Combination of model/full size aircraft can work in harmony all over the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Tseg76W2kg

[slip and turn]

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.