Low flying Vs aeromodellers
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low flying Vs aeromodellers
Long story short, bloke phones/emails our airfield having a moan about GA flying over a disused airfield he now uses for flying models... Gives a date and reg which we can link back to one of our instructors doing a PFL - as this is a site commonly used by the local flight schools in the area for PFLs, and previously by the military when Church Fenton was active. Instructor says he was doing a PFL, not hooning about playing crop-dusters or Joe Airshow pilot, and aeromodeller bloke describes it a serious incident where he thought the aircraft was about to crash and he had to take evasive action with his model (not seen by instructor or student on the day) all seen by his two mates who were witnesses.
Guy generally sounds like he's got a chip on his shoulders, and sends email with pictures/maps showing their flying areas, and sounding off about how they follow CAA rules etc.
Bit of digging from instructor suggests they are possibly in breach of CAP 658 (although this may be just guidance) with a load of videos on their website of flying above 400' (as they have an onboard camera with telemetry
) and one with the silly sods cloud-surfing (at least 2-3000' from the looks of it) which seems a bit dangerous as that's where big aeroplanes play. Interestingly the January AAIB bulletin has a report of a Robin hitting a small RC glider on approach to Shoreham, and that suggests the rules allow any height to be flown if the model weighs under 4kg? Consensus here seems to be below 400'.
Should the instructor send them an email and call them out on it, or just put it down to experience, let them enjoy the sky as much as the next man, and make a mental note to give them a wide berth in future?!
Should instructor send them a nice email thanking them for their observations, give a few helpful pointers as to the safety issues with them flying above 1000', saying he hopes we can all share the sky together and try to get along, maybe offer them a flight in a real aeroplane and a look around the hangars?
Thoughts? Ideas?
Guy generally sounds like he's got a chip on his shoulders, and sends email with pictures/maps showing their flying areas, and sounding off about how they follow CAA rules etc.
Bit of digging from instructor suggests they are possibly in breach of CAP 658 (although this may be just guidance) with a load of videos on their website of flying above 400' (as they have an onboard camera with telemetry
) and one with the silly sods cloud-surfing (at least 2-3000' from the looks of it) which seems a bit dangerous as that's where big aeroplanes play. Interestingly the January AAIB bulletin has a report of a Robin hitting a small RC glider on approach to Shoreham, and that suggests the rules allow any height to be flown if the model weighs under 4kg? Consensus here seems to be below 400'.Should the instructor send them an email and call them out on it, or just put it down to experience, let them enjoy the sky as much as the next man, and make a mental note to give them a wide berth in future?!
Should instructor send them a nice email thanking them for their observations, give a few helpful pointers as to the safety issues with them flying above 1000', saying he hopes we can all share the sky together and try to get along, maybe offer them a flight in a real aeroplane and a look around the hangars?
Thoughts? Ideas?
I may be wrong but the rules as far as I know are the same as for drones; not above 400ft agl.
If you do a PFL 'not closer than 500ft from any vessel vehicle or structure' then you're in the clear.
RC Modellers mostly go by SMAE codes of practice but there are a few who seem to think the rules don't apply to them and they have sole rights to fly over 'their' flying site.
If you do a PFL 'not closer than 500ft from any vessel vehicle or structure' then you're in the clear.
RC Modellers mostly go by SMAE codes of practice but there are a few who seem to think the rules don't apply to them and they have sole rights to fly over 'their' flying site.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Glens o' Angus by way of LA
Age: 60
Posts: 1,975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tell the anorak wearing buggers to keep their asses under 400ft and stay the foxtrot away from approach paths or find themselves another hobby, preferably one that involves standing at roundabouts writing down the number plate and names of Eddie Stobbart trucks.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe that any height restrictions apply if the weight of the model is sub 7kg.
7kg can still equate to a substantially sized model.
If the model flyer is using a site, he would be well advised to inform local airfields in order that they can avoid.
7kg can still equate to a substantially sized model.
If the model flyer is using a site, he would be well advised to inform local airfields in order that they can avoid.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Secessionist Republic of Western Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a little harsh, PiperBoy!
Before I had my first PPL lesson I sat in a small classroom while the instructor drew a cartoon aircraft on the blackboard (remember those...?)
He asked me if I knew what the elevators did, so I told him that I had built and flown R/C and free flight models since I was a spog. "Oh, good" he said "It is always much easier to teach an aeromodeller to fly".
Weeds
Before I had my first PPL lesson I sat in a small classroom while the instructor drew a cartoon aircraft on the blackboard (remember those...?)
He asked me if I knew what the elevators did, so I told him that I had built and flown R/C and free flight models since I was a spog. "Oh, good" he said "It is always much easier to teach an aeromodeller to fly".
Weeds
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all due respect, if it would be me dealing with such an issue I would contact somebody official from ATC or so and get them involved to clear things up. I could not sleep, if there is an accident in the future which could have been prevented by taking a closer look to the potential thread of such a R/C field. Yes, I was a R/C modeler long time ago, but this does not justify to let people die. If you look at YT what these buggers do today, be it R/C telemetry videos from right within GS/LOC of a big airport, or drones flying in NFZ, it is only a matter of time until somebody is killed by such. Don't be part of the structure allowing that.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It is always much easier to teach an aeromodeller to fly".
On this issue I'd remind them of the law, and that your instructor was flying legally (not below 500' above the runway), and their website appears to show evidence that they do not fly legally. Point out the dangers of that and tell them if evidence comes to you that they are still acting illegally you will take it further.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't believe the model flyer was breaking any law / rules as the 400ft rule only applies to models weighing over 7kg. That's a fairly hefty chunk of model aircraft.
It's a fair bet that the model flyer is an aircraft enthusiast or at least has an unhealthy interest in them. In this instance I reckon the best course of action (to start with) would be to befriend and educate the guy concerned.
We have a model a/c club who operate on our airfield, sometimes whilst we are flying. We work with them and get along just fine. Never had an incident in the fifty plus years they have been operating.
It's a fair bet that the model flyer is an aircraft enthusiast or at least has an unhealthy interest in them. In this instance I reckon the best course of action (to start with) would be to befriend and educate the guy concerned.
We have a model a/c club who operate on our airfield, sometimes whilst we are flying. We work with them and get along just fine. Never had an incident in the fifty plus years they have been operating.
""Tell the anorak wearing buggers to keep their asses under 400ft and stay the foxtrot away from approach paths or find themselves another hobby, preferably one that involves standing at roundabouts writing down the number plate and names of Eddie Stobbart trucks."
What a juvenile puerile ignorant posting by a 52year old aviator.
What a juvenile puerile ignorant posting by a 52year old aviator.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a juvenile puerile ignorant posting by a 52year old aviator.
Yes they can fly above 400 feet but....
They may only fly if the flight can be made safely
They must maintain direct unaided visual contact to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structure with the purpose of avoiding collisions. i.e. the onus on collision avoidance is on them and if they cannot be reasonably assured that they will be able to do this, they should not fly the aircraft.
UAV safety notice states. You are responsible for avoiding collisions with other people or objects including aircraft...
They may only fly if the flight can be made safely
They must maintain direct unaided visual contact to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structure with the purpose of avoiding collisions. i.e. the onus on collision avoidance is on them and if they cannot be reasonably assured that they will be able to do this, they should not fly the aircraft.
UAV safety notice states. You are responsible for avoiding collisions with other people or objects including aircraft...
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Scotland
Age: 84
Posts: 1,434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The dozy buggers need to realise that real aeroplanes contain real people. ("Had to take evasive action with his model") really!!
If the area is commonly used for PFLs the dozy bugger should know that.
There will be a biggie one day and that might wake someone up.
If the area is commonly used for PFLs the dozy bugger should know that.
There will be a biggie one day and that might wake someone up.
I don't believe that any height restrictions apply if the weight of the model is sub 7kg.
7kg can still equate to a substantially sized model.
If the model flyer is using a site, he would be well advised to inform local airfields in order that they can avoid.
7kg can still equate to a substantially sized model.
If the model flyer is using a site, he would be well advised to inform local airfields in order that they can avoid.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the OP states that the model flyer is operating from a "disused" airfield which they use for PFL,s.
The model flyer presumably has permission from the landowner to operate. Does the aero club concerned have permission or agreement to carry out PFL,s at the site?
I believe the model flyer may be acting quite legally.
The model flyer presumably has permission from the landowner to operate. Does the aero club concerned have permission or agreement to carry out PFL,s at the site?
I believe the model flyer may be acting quite legally.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My take
The landowner has the rights over access to the disused airfield but not the rights over the air above it. Yes the aero club would need permission to land and yes the model fliers would need permission to access that land
But I don't think the Aero Club would need permission from the landowners to descend over that land.
So SRD I think you are correct that with permission the model fliers are legal but the aero club do not need permission from the landowners
Pace
The landowner has the rights over access to the disused airfield but not the rights over the air above it. Yes the aero club would need permission to land and yes the model fliers would need permission to access that land
But I don't think the Aero Club would need permission from the landowners to descend over that land.
So SRD I think you are correct that with permission the model fliers are legal but the aero club do not need permission from the landowners
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Dubai
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under English law, the land owner also owns the airspace above the land unless specifically excluded in the lease or transfer. The construction oriented folk on here will be familiar with that notion and will no doubt have had at some time to have negotiated oversailing rights for the operation of tower cranes etc.
There is legislation to allow overflight by aircraft without causing trespass but how close does the regular practice of throwing pal,s over the land come to causing trespass and pi**ing off the neighbours?
As I said, the aero modeller is doing nothing illegal. Get him on board, befriend and educate him.
There is legislation to allow overflight by aircraft without causing trespass but how close does the regular practice of throwing pal,s over the land come to causing trespass and pi**ing off the neighbours?
As I said, the aero modeller is doing nothing illegal. Get him on board, befriend and educate him.
IAW ANO Article 166 "drones" are invariably Small Unmanned Aircraft. As previously mentioned only those 7+-20 KG are restricted to 400ft, and must not be flown in controlled airspace without ATC permission and therein knowledge. Those 7kg and below, and their operators are still however still bound by ANO provisions in respect of endangering flight of other aircraft.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not usually happy with lengthy tomes of "cut & Paste" but this may answer some questions.
A write up by Balfour Mansons solicitors.
A write up by Balfour Mansons solicitors.
Recent technological developments mean that it is time for a fresh look at the law of private airspace. In future your online purchase could be delivered by a drone. Even today it is easy to buy a toy-sized remotely-controlled helicopter capable of overflying property, hovering in gardens and outside windows and sending back real time video. Just enter “toy helicopter camera” into your favourite search engine and see what there is. But can your neighbour just buy a toy helicopter with a camera and use it to take a closer look at your home or business?
In Scotland, the vertical boundary of landownership is from the sky to the centre of the Earth (a coelo ad centrum). In 1977 the High Court of England & Wales held (in Bernstein v. Sky Views and General Ltd) that the practicalities of modern aviation made it necessary to “restrict the rights of an owner in the airspace above his land to such height as was necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it, and to declare that above that height he had no greater rights in the airspace than any other member of the public.”. But in Scotland the old rule of unlimited airspace ownership is considered still to be the common law (See Professor Kenneth Reid – The Law of Property in Scotland). The landowner’s rights are limited only to the extent that specific legislation applies.
The (UK-wide) Civil Aviation Act 1982 denies the landowner any remedy for “trespass” or “nuisance” “by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of such flight.”. The specific legal restrictions on small unmanned aircraft (such as toy helicopters) include: no flights unless the person in charge reasonably thinks it is safe to do so and maintains “unaided visual contact” sufficient to navigate safely. If surveillance kit (a camera) is aboard, more restrictions apply, including the need to stay at least 30 metres away from “any person”, except the craft’s controller, during takeoff and landing (Air Navigation Order 2009). Flying over or near residential premises with an onboard camera may amount to “intrusive surveillance” requiring authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000, an authorisation that can be given only for police surveillance for criminal investigation purposes. Any use of a surveillance camera is also likely to come under the Data Protection Act as there is likely to be other information with which the images can be combined as “personal data”. Passing satellites, whether from the UK or another party to the UN Outer Space Treaty, are dealt with by the Outer Space Act 1986.
A mix of very ancient and very modern laws should help protect you from prying toys.
- See more at: Private airspace - is your garden privacy under threat? - Balfour+Manson
In Scotland, the vertical boundary of landownership is from the sky to the centre of the Earth (a coelo ad centrum). In 1977 the High Court of England & Wales held (in Bernstein v. Sky Views and General Ltd) that the practicalities of modern aviation made it necessary to “restrict the rights of an owner in the airspace above his land to such height as was necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it, and to declare that above that height he had no greater rights in the airspace than any other member of the public.”. But in Scotland the old rule of unlimited airspace ownership is considered still to be the common law (See Professor Kenneth Reid – The Law of Property in Scotland). The landowner’s rights are limited only to the extent that specific legislation applies.
The (UK-wide) Civil Aviation Act 1982 denies the landowner any remedy for “trespass” or “nuisance” “by reason only of the flight of an aircraft over any property at a height above the ground which, having regard to wind, weather and all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, or the ordinary incidents of such flight.”. The specific legal restrictions on small unmanned aircraft (such as toy helicopters) include: no flights unless the person in charge reasonably thinks it is safe to do so and maintains “unaided visual contact” sufficient to navigate safely. If surveillance kit (a camera) is aboard, more restrictions apply, including the need to stay at least 30 metres away from “any person”, except the craft’s controller, during takeoff and landing (Air Navigation Order 2009). Flying over or near residential premises with an onboard camera may amount to “intrusive surveillance” requiring authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000, an authorisation that can be given only for police surveillance for criminal investigation purposes. Any use of a surveillance camera is also likely to come under the Data Protection Act as there is likely to be other information with which the images can be combined as “personal data”. Passing satellites, whether from the UK or another party to the UN Outer Space Treaty, are dealt with by the Outer Space Act 1986.
A mix of very ancient and very modern laws should help protect you from prying toys.
- See more at: Private airspace - is your garden privacy under threat? - Balfour+Manson