Flying on recreation grounds and in other public spaces

[Bryce Allcorn - BritFlight.co.uk]

I do fly at a local recreation ground - it is the only place locally I can fly while being on call, I don't want to be faced with the choice of having to take the fire engine off the run/unavailable just because I want to spend a bit of time flying - we don't have enough personnel to allow me to just come off call yet still have the fire engine crewed. So I only fly when the park is empty, as soon as someone else comes along I land until they have cleared the area and I limit it to my Hustle being the largest plane to fly there. I have never been approached by anyone despite it being "owned" by Surrey county council who ban anything that could be deemed as fun!

 

There is a much bigger and emptier field owned by the Army that many local people fly from but they are under fire from the civvy guards that "look after" Army grounds and of course it takes too long to respond from there.

 

Peters list of things that are okay to do does suggest the person who risk assessed the grounds really does need to be retrained! Additionally I find the language from those on the side lines on Sunday football matched much more of a inconvenience than any small electric plane!

[Romeo Whisky]

To Peter's list above, add those practising golf driving. More people are injured - even killed - by dogs and "uncontrolled" flying golf balls each year then by model aircraft - and the golfers usually don't replace their divots either! And NONE of them or those he lists above have £millions of 3rd party insurance which all responsible park flyers do.

 

Many a time when I fly at our local playing fields, usually mid-morning, there is no-one else there. The early-moring dog-walkers have gone to work, the kids have gone to school. Occasionally there is someone driving golf-balls along the edges of the field but otherwise the field would be unused. And there are loads of small electric park-flyer models available. Safety is a primary concern of all responsible model flyers, but we all pay council tax, and the playing fields should be available just as much for our pleasure as for other less responsible and uninsured users.

 

[Tim Mackey]

I am not saying dont fly anything in the park - just limit it to small relatively harmless models. Large helis scare the life out of me even in the most capable of hands.

[Solid Snake]

Personally I never fly anything in the local park, even though it is a minute walk away, purely because there are too many other people who get in the way. When I first started on my twin motored "virtually indestructible RC plane" in the park I had an out of control 3 year old child try to snatch it out of the air when I was trying to land it, would hate to think what would happen if he grabbed hold of the front of something like a "Parkzone" Mustang

[Ben B]

If the park officers / constables used common sense and discretion then having such a byelaw wouldn't be a problem. Trouble is, they don't always! They appear to enjoy sticking to the rules quite precisely. Or even going beyond them! Last winter the park constables at Wormwood scrubs started handing out flyers with "new" flying times on them which said we could not fly at all on Sundays in the Winter / Spring! Infact, one Constable threatened to arrest me if I didn't stop flying on a Sunday because my 200g foam flyer was "a risk to the other park users" despite the fact that I was flying in a prescribed flying area (with great big boundary markers and warning signs) and the nearest other park user was about 2 miles away...

 

It took a Freedom of Information act application to confirm that this was completely fabricated and that the byelaws had not changed at all and a firm letter to the Chief Inspector to resolve the issue (perversion of the course of justice was mentioned!)....

 

It does seem unfair that I can get garotted by kite strings, run over by cyclists, attacked by out-of-control dogs (happened to me twice now!) etc all within the byelaws yet I can't fly my lightweight foamy model because it's "dangerous". Unfortunately, I think it's got a lot to do with flying being a minority sport- if they tried the same thing with dog walkers they'd have thousands of angry pooch lovers outside the council building and they'd quickly cave in.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Peter Antonio on 09/07/2011 00:19:46:

Most model RC users have learnt to fly their aircraft over many years and have invested heavily into their hobby. Most model RC users are usually older responsible, people who understand being reckless and crashing is not an option because of the heavy financial cost of repairs not to mention their aircraft being grounded for weeks, maybe months; So RC users would always be careful and responsible whilst flying.>>

Finally I would like to mention, although I believe the byelaws for pleasure grounds, public walks and open spaces should permit Model radio control aircraft or cars to be used in our parks, I also believe that no petrol, nitro, gas or solid fuel should be.>>

Edited By Peter Antonio on 09/07/2011 00:19:59

I have to say Peter I find some of your views, and the arguments you put forward in support of them, rather worrying.

 

In the first paragraph above you cite as the main reason RC pilots don't wish to crash the financial penalty which would result. In my view, when dealing with the general public outside of the hobby, this is not a good line to take, nor does it project us in the right light.

 

The primary reason for not crashing is, and in my opinion must always be, the safety argument. A crashing model is an out of control model. Out of control is bad because its potentially dangerous - so we avoid it. We avoid it by having a very highly developed sense of safety awareness through adoption of proper, carefully thought out, proceedures such as pre-flight checks etc. We are pursuing a hobby, but the public (and particularly local authorities etc.) must be content that our attitude to safety is fully professional in both its thoroughness and standard. I believe this is the line that is most likely to impress Jo Public - not "we don't crash because it costs too much".

 

I have a heartfelt interest in this thread. As many on here may know my own club flies from a public park. In my area the bye-laws totally prohibit the flying of model aircraft in any local park. We are the one exception. Our club has a lease-type contract with the local authority allowing us to fly. One of the reasons we get this dispensation is because we are a properly constituted club, with club instructors, examiners and a rule that no one flies unaccompanied without an A cert. Further local club rules - operated in addition to the BMFA guidelines - mean that the very highest standards of safety are adherded to. That is works is attested to by the fact that in the nearly 50 years that the club has flown from this site we have not had one single injury to a member of the public or damage to property. And bear in mind we fly everything up to the 20Kg limit - including gas turbines.

 

It is these type of proceedures, attitudes and track records that impress local authorities and get them "on your side". Indeed our relationship with the council is a very good one while our relationship with the park rangers is positively warm and supportive. Indeed our regular use of the park (flying takes place every day) is something the rangers are very glad of.

 

So the two can mix - but not, I suspect, the way you seem to be going about it. You're going to have to address their issues, not just demand your rights!

 

And what's all this about no IC, nitro or petrol? You're making generalisations that in some cases are not applicable. Suppose your campaign was sucessful - and you won the right to have the law changed. Have you given a single thought to the fact that such a "no IC" provision in that new law could effectively make my local authority reluctantly close my club down? And the same for many other clubs flying off parkland. No, I suppose you haven't.

 

Some folks on here will know that in the past I have been critical of some aspects of how BMFA goes about its business. But flying site access and protection is one area I do think they do great job. My sincere advice Peter would be scrap this petition and work through the BMFA to achieve your objective. They have a much more sophisticated approach, a better knowledge of the law and are more aware of the "big picture" than you seem to me to be.

 

BEB

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 09/07/2011 20:05:33

[Spice Cat]

Add to the risk factor;

Treading in a package left by some dog and its irresponsible owner.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

As is usually the case, I find myself in agreement with BEB - I too, had some reservations about Peter's approach and BEB has encapsulated them most elegantly.

 

The lone flier is always at a disadvantage - for example, it's normal practice at our club for anyone noticing a walker or horse rider in the vicinity to call out the fact to the flightline. In a park, it would be very difficult to maintain total awareness of people or animals heading for a dangerous situation from behind the pilot.

 

A well run club operating in a clearly defined area of a public park is a very different thing but Peter's opposition to clubs in general as being more dangerous than his ideal of a lone flyer astounds me. Yes, there's a possibility of collision but to say you're forever dodging other models either means he's visited very poorly run clubs or has no real understanding of the role circuit discipline and communication between pilots works...or perhaps he visited a 1/12 scale combat meeting!!! Not only do most clubs have rules to regulate flying to minimise undue hazards, but a wealth of experience is passed on to new pilots, bringing awareness of hazards that may not be appreciated by the lone or self-taught pilot.

[Peter Antonio]

Hold on,,,,I think a Chile pill is needed here, I‘m as passionate as you guys are,.. I have no intention of harming this amazing hobby, or to take business away from clubs across the UK. On the contrary I have a more positive outlook. I believe by changing the councils mind set in regards to byelaws will allow this hobby to be noticed and enjoyed by thousands of young and old people that use our local parks and fields that would otherwise be unaware of this amazing hobby. Hopefully this will generate interest and in time newbie’s will take up this hobby and secure its future, which in my opinion can only be beneficial to all involved.

Unfortunately this hobby at present is only enjoyed by a few, out of sight and in some distant park or field, that’s one of the reasons why numbers are decreasing every year. Technology has moved on, I’m hardly going to keep going to the same old boring field or park to fly my FPV…. I’d soon get bored. The councils have dictated ridiculous rules and regulations that are clearly out of date, dating back from the 1970’s, and RC clubs are happy to follow suit, either because of selfish reasons ,thinking only about their businesses whilst enjoying the full monopoly of this hobby, or they’re still stuck in the 1920’s scared of change.

The bye-laws will change, it’s already happening it’s only a matter of time and boroughs across the UK will have to follow suit. Clubs will always be required and be an important part of newbie’s introduction into this hobby, as a means of advice, help, learning, skill, social gathering, events, etc.

One thing I am surprised about is Enfield councils open mindedness and approach, they listened and took sensible action allocating weekly times and marked out area’s in parks across Enfield were my fellow hobbyist can now use and enjoy their local parks using radio controlled devices.

Sadly and disappointingly it’s been made quite clear to me that curtain RC clubs are totally against the byelaw change because of uncertainty regarding the future of their businesses. My advice is either move into the 21^st century willingly helping to make the change or you’ll destroy this hobby and have no business anyway. I dread to think what laws clubs would lay down if they had the power to do so we probably wouldn’t be allowed to fly a tiny walker 43b or foamy unless you where a member of a club.

I’m a determined person and I will do all I can to prevail.

 

Edited By Peter Antonio on 10/07/2011 19:58:14

Edited By Peter Antonio on 10/07/2011 20:00:26

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 10/07/2011 20:44:03

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Peter,

 

I'm posting this as a forum Moderator - not a participant in the debate!

 

Please read this and this before making any more posts with links in. This is the second time you used an incorrect linking procedure.

 

BEB

 

PS Can't now but will be happy to repond to your points, as a participant in the debate, a little later!

[f3ktony]

There are big parks and there are smaller parks, there are busy parks and parks where you might be the only person on it, and there are big models and there are smaller models. 2.4GHz has all but made frequency problems a thing of the past, frequency clashes are/were probably the main causes of loss of control.

It might be good if the government departments responsible for this area of legislation sang from the same song sheet.

DEFRA's byelaws doc - (online version) dated 11/06 it appears

Communities and Local Government doc (download) dated May 2006

This is an interesting area on the DEFRA site:

4.4 If a byelaw-making authority is applying under one of the following Acts: the Open Spaces Act 1906; the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949; or the Local Government Act 1972. and it is satisfied that the activities which it wishes to regulate may be adequately covered by a model byelaw it should obtain a copy of the up-to-date (my emphasis) the Defra website at ..... (removed to avoid links)

The minutes of the BMFA Full Council Meeting held on 6th January 2007 has this on page 25:

 

'We have had some success with our negotiations with DEFRA in relation to the Bylaws document. Originally in their draft bylaws what they had put forward was somewhat more draconian than the existing bylaws. They seem to have rationalised the bylaws for other activities such as horseriding and walking etc. but increased the regulation on model flying. When challenged on this they related it directly to the fact that there had been a fatality in recent years with model flying. However we challenged this and they seem to have taken on board a lot of the arguments we put forward. Now the bylaws relate only to power driven model aircraft and aircraft below 500grms are no longer covered by the bylaws, which is a reasonable result.'

 

I also like the 'Why are the byelaws necessary?' section on the DEFRA document, it would/will be interesting to see what councils put in these boxes.

Edited By Tim Mackey - Administrator on 10/07/2011 22:24:08

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Peter's last post seems to infer that clubs are businesses trying to protect their own interests by any means . Unless I've led a very sheltered existence, nothing could be further from the truth. All the clubs I have any knowledge of are simply groups of generally like-minded individuals who realise the benefits and practicalities of organising flying activities with the aim of enjoying their hobby as safely and securely as possible, whether on their own, rented or public sites.

 

Any opposition to what they might see as reckless or selfish behaviour (and please don't infer anything from this statement about your flying activities Peter as I have absolutely no knowledge of your situation) would be based on the general interests of the hobby. The more participants (operating safely and considerately) the better, as far as I'm concerned and I'm sure this goes for the majority of clubs and individuals.

Edited By Martin Harris on 10/07/2011 23:08:51

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Well I find I must return Martin's compliment - in that I totally endorse his comments regarding clubs. RC Model Clubs in my experience do not have a pecunary interest in stopping other people flying and indeed they would never seek to to do so - just the opposite is much nearer the truth I would say.

 

Peter, in principle I do not have a problem with your objectives, indeed I share those objectives - at least as far as allowing some flying of approriate size models in some public parks is concerned. It is the way you are going about trying to achieve your objective that concerns me. I have extensive experience with the whole machinery of government - from dealing with local authorities, regional agencies, national governments and the EU. Believe me, you will not bully them into submission. For all sorts of reasons.

 

Firstly they have infinitely greater resources and experience in this area than you. Secondly we, as a hobby, are a very, very, small minority. We have no real power so there is no point in "sabre rattling" that just leads to us writing cheques we can't honour. Thirdly, in my experience, the whole ethos of government, at any level, is about the language of inclusion and reasonablness. If you go in with talk of "I will prevail" then frankly they see a 100 like you every day and every one of them, without exception, is batted into the long grass. They eat that sort of approach for breakfast.

 

Don't make the classical mistake of believing that local government is full of incompetant, stupid, people. It isn't. There are a lot of very bright and capable folks working in local government and they are very skilled at what they do. And what they mainly do is neutralise people they see as a "problem".

 

Take one example. I've told you about our arrangement with our local authority; all RC flying in all parks is banned - except for our club and we have a legal lease for a designated strip and flying area in the largest park. Suppose you were to come along to them, shooting from the hip and demanding your right to fly your foamie in your local park. What would they do? They would simply tell you that they have made provision for the safe pursuit of your hobby via my club, the club has open membership and if you want to fly on their land they will tell you that you have to join our club and here is the address of the club secretary. And then they will sit back and do precisely nothing else. Why? Because they are 100% confident that no ombudsman, central government department or court in the land will rule that they have acted unreasonably. You will not win by bluster or threat - they have all the cards.

 

So, how can you win? Well in my view the way to achieve your objective is very much by engaging with the authority in a dialogue. Be the guy who has a solution, not the problem. You need to talk the language of reconcillation and be "Mr Reasonable". Most of all you must address what they see as their legimate concerns and seek to reassure them that you and fellow fliers are responsible people and very much aware of the demands of safety, social responsibility etc. It may seem counter intuitive but the softer and more "low key" you go in, the more likely you are to suceed. The approach needs to be "can we find a way in which this activity can be carried out in safe way that meets both of our needs". If you go in carrying a big stick and projecting the image of your alter-ego "Mr Speedy" they will just erect the barricades - and believe me they are really good at that!

 

That's why I suggest you redirect your energy to work with the BMFA. They understand this type of approach and are very skilled at it. Negoiation is the order of the day and BMFA are experienced at negoiating. The best approach is probably for the BMFA to talk with he collective local authorities through their institute or the like.

 

Peter believe me I do hope you win the right to fly appropriate models in at least some of your local parks - but my experience tells me you need to reconsider your approach to how you go abaout it.

 

BEB

[leccyflyer]

Couple of cracking posts there BEB - well said!

[leccyflyer]

Posted by Peter Antonio on 10/07/2011 19:57:20:

Hold on,,,,I think a Chile pill is needed here, I‘m as passionate as you guys are,.. I have no intention of harming this amazing hobby, or to take business away from clubs across the UK. On the contrary I have a more positive outlook. I believe by changing the councils mind set in regards to byelaws will allow this hobby to be noticed and enjoyed by thousands of young and old people that use our local parks and fields that would otherwise be unaware of this amazing hobby. Hopefully this will generate interest and in time newbie’s will take up this hobby and secure its future, which in my opinion can only be beneficial to all involved.

Unfortunately this hobby at present is only enjoyed by a few, out of sight and in some distant park or field, that’s one of the reasons why numbers are decreasing every year. Technology has moved on, I’m hardly going to keep going to the same old boring field or park to fly my FPV…. I’d soon get bored. The councils have dictated ridiculous rules and regulations that are clearly out of date, dating back from the 1970’s, and RC clubs are happy to follow suit, either because of selfish reasons ,thinking only about their businesses whilst enjoying the full monopoly of this hobby, or they’re still stuck in the 1920’s scared of change.

The bye-laws will change, it’s already happening it’s only a matter of time and boroughs across the UK will have to follow suit. Clubs will always be required and be an important part of newbie’s introduction into this hobby, as a means of advice, help, learning, skill, social gathering, events, etc.

One thing I am surprised about is Enfield councils open mindedness and approach, they listened and took sensible action allocating weekly times and marked out area’s in parks across Enfield were my fellow hobbyist can now use and enjoy their local parks using radio controlled devices.

Sadly and disappointingly it’s been made quite clear to me that curtain RC clubs are totally against the byelaw change because of uncertainty regarding the future of their businesses. My advice is either move into the 21^st century willingly helping to make the change or you’ll destroy this hobby and have no business anyway. I dread to think what laws clubs would lay down if they had the power to do so we probably wouldn’t be allowed to fly a tiny walker 43b or foamy unless you where a member of a club.

I’m a determined person and I will do all I can to prevail.

 

Edited By Peter Antonio on 10/07/2011 19:58:14

Edited By Peter Antonio on 10/07/2011 20:00:26

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 10/07/2011 20:44:03

I don't think I've ever read a more misguided view of what model clubs do than that post.

 

The clue is in the use of the word business to describe clubs. The vast majority of clubs are not businesses. They exist to permit the operation of model aircraft, by like minded enthusiasts, in a safe environment. Those who work behind the scenes to keep the clubs running and those who participate in their activities give generously of their time and efforts to promote the hobby. They are not doing it to make money.

 

TBH I'm getting a bit fed up of the constant anti-club sentiments that are widely chucked about on the internet . If some loners enjoy the hobby of standing alone in the middle of a park, flying a sub-16oz RTF foamie then that's fine by me. Go right ahead and enjoy it. However when they misrepresent and malign the efforts of thousands of long-time aeromodellers, because their hobby means something a bit more controlled, on the grounds of safety, which needs a proper field, then I might be moved to comment.

[Spice Cat]

Posted by leccyflyer on 11/07/2011 10:45:54:
Couple of cracking posts there BEB - well said!

Couldn't agree more BEB, specially the part about fighting City Hall, you really are a most eloquent man. Can I ask you to do my staff annual appriasals please???

In my small world I have tried it on a number of occasions to take on the local authority and have spectacularly lost each time.

 

I once asked a really simple question of the local council;

The conversation went thus;

"Who services the lifts in **** Block on the *** Estate?"

"For what purpose do you need this information?"

"To assess the cost of damage to a control panel. So who does it?"

"I can't tell you that"

"How can I find out?"

"Please submit this request in writing with a Data Protection Act form"

"This seems a bit silly. Who is the senior line manager at your office?"

"I can't tell you that"

She hung up, I gave up and after nearly a month of wrangling I still didn't have the answer.

They say the Swiss banking system is the most impenetrable in the world that not even the Mossad can get in. I suspect Southwark Council could teach them a thing or two.....

I too used to fly a small foamy in a local park but only between the hours of 6.30 and 7.00 and would stop when the early dog walkers or joggers came into view.

[Peter Antonio]

Thank you for your advice, and i am fully aware of your methods I’m not going to pass judgment whether you’re dealing with it correctly or in correctly to achieve the objective, that’s not for me to judge, everybody has their own methods.>>

Most may think I’m dealing with this incorrectly to achieve the objective, some may presume I’m trying to bully and threaten these people into submission, their fools to think that, I’m fully aware how the councils work, I’ve had many dealings with them in past years and have always won, so please don’t think I’m new to this, you know nothing about me so don’t judge me. However through my hard stance, unorthodox approach, bullying, threatening, whatever you may call it I’ve made more progress in the last month on my own with this issue than the BMFA or any other individual over the last 2 years. I’ve managed to get the local and national papers behind me, an interview on BBC radio London station with follow up stories to come. Maybe it needs an outsider like me with bulls’ I don’t have to go through soft procedures like the BMFA does, and I don’t have to hold back with how or what I say, the law is the law and if laws are incorrect or unfair as I know they are concerning the use of radio controlled devices in local parks and recreational areas, they can be changed, and will be. I’m a very successful business man and I’ve fought for everything I have, It seems I have made the wrong choice coming to this site looking for fellow RC users with bulls that will stick their necks out, it’s clear you guys are reading from the wrong page, so it’s best I leave this site to avoid further conflict and carry on on my own.. >>

In one month I have archived this, I suspect it’s more then the BMFA or anybody else has achieved in 2 years.>>

(iii) fly any such model aircraft except on the days and during the hours specified in the following table:-

Arnos Park and Broomfield Park on Monday to Saturday inclusive from 9am-12 noon and 4pm-6pm or sunset whichever is the earlier.>>

Groveland’s Park and Oakwood Park on Monday to Saturday inclusive from 9am-12 noon and 4pm-6pm or sunset whichever is the earlier. Sundays 4pm-6pm or sunset whichever is the earlier.>>

Firs farm on Monday 4pm-6pm or sunset whichever is the earlier and Saturdays at 10am-12 noon.>>

Enfield Playing Fields on Saturday, September-March from 10am-1pm and April -August 10am-12 noon. Sundays, September-March 1:30pm-8pm or half an hour after sunset whichever is the earlier. April-August 10am-2pm.>>

> >I'm at present arranging to approach each council individually, seemingly on my own to get swift positive results, don’t wish me luck, I don’t need it.

[Ultymate]

Peter if you're so happy about ploughing your own furrow so to speak and brow beating councils into submission why come on public forums seeking support from the wider aero modelling community when from my experience most genuine long-standing modellers have little interest in flying alone or in public parks/places. In my experience a lot of lone flyers seem quite happy to deride "clubs" and yet when they deem it to be of advantage come seeking the support of said clubs and the BMFA

[f3ktony]

Funny how Peter got Enfield to change their byelaws to allow model flying in their parks if he has 'the wrong attitude'. Don't fight the bureaucrats, use the media to get what you want when to normal channels fail. Bureaucrats do not like media coverage of themselves, especially if it might look like they're being jobsworth killjoys.

I have been in touch with the BMFA, had one reply to my 3 or 4 emails so far asking for clarification of the DEFRA vs. DCLG byelaw documents and advice for when I go to the parish council meeting next Monday.

Clubs have their uses, I belong to one and enjoy the meetings, BBQs, etc., but I prefer to fly by myself at a field I can walk to as against a half hour drive to one of the two less than suitable for glider fields that the club uses (one in a park!).

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Lord save us from "crusaders". Peter, I'll make only one observation and then ask one thing of you if you would be so kind.

 

The observation - I am truely grateful of the fact that I live 200 miles away!

 

The request - please do not give any of these councils reason to believe that you speak for me - or indeed I suspect even the majority of fliers!

 

BEB

[f3ktony]

I started this thread so that Peter would hopefully contact me so I could learn how he managed to persuade Enfield to change their byelaws - success. Peter may be a bit keen, but that's what you need to be to cut throughout the official bull sometimes.

I wonder how many youngsters and their Dads have been chucked off a park or recreation ground for flying a park flyer and then lost all interest in the hobby because of some miserable jobsworth and their draconian rules. Sometimes these jobsworths don't even know the byelaws, see the previous threads I link to in the first post.

[WalkAMileInMyShoes]

I've been flying in local parks for 5 years - since I started electric flying.

 

I fly a Formosa, brushless TwinStar II and an Easy Glider with brushless motor. I'm currently eye-ing up one of those FMS warbirds.

 

Is there a problem here? Peter seems to have got the right idea - but a lot of people are dismissing his efforts. Why is this?

[Tom Wright 2]

This debate is really about risk assessment ,problems only arise when irresponsible individuals are let loose .

We fly on common land,and often have friendly on lookers that include the police and local council officials .

We carry out a risk assessment everytime as variables like wind direction and strength,

 possition and number of people in the area ,are always taken in to account.

Edited By Tom Wright 2 on 11/07/2011 15:23:34

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Hi, WalkaMile...As I've said - I have no problem with anyone flying appropriate models, under the right circumstances, in suitable parks. But I do have a problem with the potential damage that could be done to the image of our hobby, and loacl club's carefully nurtured relationships with local authorities over both flying access and noise issues, by "Mr Speedy", with his "challenging" approach and public statements.

 

Many of us are in potentially delicate and vulnerable positions - we don't need "loose cannons" speaking on the national media which might be mistakenly taken to represent the view of the flying community in general.

 

BTW Peter, congratulations on your limited suceess in obtaining at least some access to your local parks. But you see our, perhaps slightly slower, but certainly more "user friendly" approach, gives us all day access, 365 days of the year and allows the flying of electric, IC and gas turbine models. Amazing what you can achieve with a little subtlety, tact and diplomacy isn't it?

 

BEB

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Tom said:

"This debate is really about risk assessment ,problems only arise when irresponsible individuals are let loose ."

 

The problem, as perceived by an average council, will be those irresponsible individuals being given carte blanche.

 

It's an extreme example, but 2 such people thought they could build a Wot4 and fly it with little or no experience. The badly constructed model failed in flight and tragically killed a young girl going about her lawful business on public land. The local club, (as far as I'm aware) who these gentlemen didn't have anything to do with and who'd operated safely for many years, lost their use of the land as a result

 

I am aware that Peter has dismissed this case as irrelevent and if we're truly talking about lightweight low energy models then he may be correct.

 

However, the helicopters that he's pictured with look to me as if they could do significant damage to persons, animals or property which worries me more than a little. If these models are being flown between 200 - 300 feet, they must be pretty large and of course, it's not eay to get to 200 feet or land again without passing head height. I have only seen helicopters operating within a club environment but even 60 sized ones rarely seem to stay above 30 feet long except for brief excursions to the top of manouevres.

Edited By Martin Harris on 11/07/2011 15:38:19