Slope Combat

[Devon Flyer]

I've been thinking a bit today (always dangerous ) and I realise this may well open up a can of worms, but I would like to know how slope combat can be squared with ANOs 137 & 138, viz:

 

Article137;
‘A person must not recklessly or negligently act
in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any
person in an aircraft’

Article 138;

“A person must not recklessly or negligently
cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any

person or property”

 

Anyone got the answers?

 

 

 

[David Gilder]

Easy one that DF.

 

The ANO's state " recklessly or negligently".

 

Slope combat is neither reckless or negligent.... Its done deliberately with definate intent.

Also its done generally in way that the aircraft do not fall to ground in location likely to endanger persons or property!!

 

Done!!!!

[Andy Symons]

137 refers to endangering full size so easy adhered to for combat, 138 is a little harder to square away, however as long as your not endangering people or property other than the model your combatting against I see no real problem.

[Tim Mackey]

I agree that 138 is a little harder to defend - but I think the other thing is that all parties involved in the activity are fully aware that it may result in damage to their property ( their model )... and that there is a small risk that they themselves could be struck by a model, or part of a model. generally speaking, the models are relatively small, light, and bouncy foam construction, so hardly likely to inflict serious harm.

[Devon Flyer]

Posted by David Gilder on 02/09/2011 18:11:29:

Easy one that DF.

 

The ANO's state " recklessly or negligently".

 

Slope combat is neither reckless or negligent.... Its done deliberately with definate intent.

 

 

A deliberate act of crashing into another plane would be considered negligent in a court of law.

 

Posted by Andy Symons on 02/09/2011 18:13:15:

137 refers to endangering full size so easy adhered to for combat, 138 is a little harder to square away, however as long as your not endangering people or property other than the model your combatting against I see no real problem.

 

 

To quote the BMFA handbook on ANOs : "THESE APPLY TO ALL MODEL AIRCRAFT AT

ALL TIMES, WHATEVER THEIR WEIGHT OR SIZE."

No legal distinction is made between models and full size.

[Danny Fenton]

I saw loads of control line combat at the BMFA Nats, how does that fit or does it only include RC models?

 

[Devon Flyer]

I'm just interested to know where you would stand legally, if someone was injured, or property damaged, by an errant airframe that had been deliberately knocked out of the air by another flyer. Apart from the public liability side of things; how would the CAA look at it?

[Alan Cantwell]

what errant airframe , person, and property are you meaning?

[Devon Flyer]

Posted by Alan 4 on 02/09/2011 18:57:04:

what errant airframe , person, and property are you meaning?

 

 

Hypothetical ones.

 

Accidents can, and do, happen - even when all reasonable precautions have been taken to prevent them. This is something accommodated for in law.

However, if an aircraft is deliberately crashed into and knocked out of the air, that can hardly be described as an 'accident', can it?

[DCW]

There are no 'grey areas' with the Air navigation Order, it refers to ALL aircraft manned or un-manned. There is no doubt that so called slope combat is a breach of the of this order.

 

Consider this: what would happen if debris from one of these aircraft, say a battery or something hit and killed someone. We all have seen the speed that falling objects can reach and have probably dug up embeded items from the ground......

 

Further information: CAP 658, article 74.

 

DW

[Andy Symons]

Posted by Devon Flyer on 02/09/2011 18:22:43:

Posted by Andy Symons on 02/09/2011 18:13:15:

137 refers to endangering full size so easy adhered to for combat, 138 is a little harder to square away, however as long as your not endangering people or property other than the model your combatting against I see no real problem.

 

 

To quote the BMFA handbook on ANOs : "THESE APPLY TO ALL MODEL AIRCRAFT AT

ALL TIMES, WHATEVER THEIR WEIGHT OR SIZE."

No legal distinction is made between models and full size.

You have missed my point, 137 refers to not letting your model endanger a full size aircraft.

[John Privett]

Posted by Andy Symons on 03/09/2011 00:27:59:

You have missed my point, 137 refers to not letting your model endanger a full size aircraft.

 

I don't see the words "full size" anywhere in article 137...

 

Article137;
‘A person must not recklessly or negligently act
in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any
person in an aircraft’

 

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Never having experienced slope combat I can only imagine the scenario but I have done a fair bit of 1/12 scale WW2 combat where safety rules include separation distances from any observers and hard hats for all participants and officials although mid-airs are a consequence of small misjudgements and not deliberate but fairly common.

 

If necessary precautions have been taken to exclude forseeable danger to passers by and participants then surely the act isn't reckless or negligent but deliberate and calculated and therefore legal.

Edited By Martin Harris on 03/09/2011 01:22:36

[Devon Flyer]

Posted by Martin Harris on 03/09/2011 01:19:15:

Never having experienced slope combat I can only imagine the scenario but I have done a fair bit of 1/12 scale WW2 combat where safety rules include separation distances from any observers and hard hats for all participants and officials although mid-airs are a consequence of small misjudgements and not deliberate but fairly common.

 

 

 

 

And therein lies the rub.

The difference in law between a mid-air happening as a result of a misjudgement or one caused deliberately.

 

Don't get me wrong on this ; I love my slope combat as much as anyone, it's just the legal aspect of it that intrigues me.

 

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

And the point to argue (heaven forbid) in the event of a prosecution would be that you were being neither reckless nor negligent and that an incident occurred outside what could have been reasonably foreseen.

 

As an example, Article 98 of the ANO Para 2 (a) states (in regard to > 7 kg models where legal controls are more rigidly enforced) "unless the person in charge of the aircraft has reasonably satisfied themselves that the flight can be safely made".

 

Although the wording of the act does suggest that endangerment of any aircraft is an offence, I'd imagine that should the CAA bring a prosecution as the result of a willing participant's model being dented by another in a combat session they would be sent packing by the judge for bringing a frivolous case to court.  If they did so because members of the public were being hazarded due to a negligent or reckless approach to organisation that might be a different matter.

 

With regard to your earlier statement, DF, that "A deliberate act of crashing into another plane would be considered negligent in a court of law." what grounds could they quote if the likely consequences of that act were considered properly before the event?

Edited By Martin Harris on 03/09/2011 10:51:06

[Ian Jones]

A very interesting and worthwhile discussion.

I remember reading something about this in RCM&E a good few years ago but not being pariculalrly interested in combat at the time I haven't committed any of it to memory.

I think that an up to date and authorative answer could be obtained from the BMFA.

[Devon Flyer]

Posted by Martin Harris on 03/09/2011 10:30:28:

 

With regard to your earlier statement, DF, that "A deliberate act of crashing into another plane would be considered negligent in a court of law." what grounds could they quote if the likely consequences of that act were considered properly before the event?

Probably the same grounds they could use if you deliberately drove your car into another one, fully realising that by doing so you could cause the other driver to lose control. If the other driver then ran someone over, whose fault would it be?

[DCW]

Too much guesswork and assumptions......... Why not go on the CAA website and get a copy of the main points of the ANO. Just don't try combat on National Trust property or any other public place.

 

DW

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Devon Flyer on 03/09/2011 16:18:44:

Posted by Martin Harris on 03/09/2011 10:30:28:

 

With regard to your earlier statement, DF, that "A deliberate act of crashing into another plane would be considered negligent in a court of law." what grounds could they quote if the likely consequences of that act were considered properly before the event?

Probably the same grounds they could use if you deliberately drove your car into another one, fully realising that by doing so you could cause the other driver to lose control. If the other driver then ran someone over, whose fault would it be?

 

 

Sorry but I don't see the relevence of that argument. If I were participating in a Demolition Derby with a stock car (do they still do that?) I wouldn't expect to see a flashing blue light in my mirror and get a ticket for dangerous driving. Spectators have been killed or injured on many occasions at motor races and by and large the organisers and participants have been absolved from blame for the consequences of their accidents due to demonstrating that they have taken reasonable precautions and motor racing has been allowed to continue at most venues.

[Devon Flyer]

Posted by Martin Harris on 04/09/2011 08:18:11:

 

 

Sorry but I don't see the relevence of that argument. If I were participating in a Demolition Derby with a stock car (do they still do that?) I wouldn't expect to see a flashing blue light in my mirror and get a ticket for dangerous driving. Spectators have been killed or injured on many occasions at motor races and by and large the organisers and participants have been absolved from blame for the consequences of their accidents due to demonstrating that they have taken reasonable precautions and motor racing has been allowed to continue at most venues.

 

 

Fair point Martin.

But isn't motorsport highly regulated with regard to public safety and all entry to motorsport events are on the understanding that it is dangerous ie. disclaimers on tickets, placards etc?

Most slopers just turn up on a hill and have a bash. Pretty much all hills have public access (that's why we use them) and, at times, it's almost impossible to know if anyone is in the firing line of a falling airframe.

I'm just interested in where we stand legally as no one seems to be able to give definitave answer.

 

PS. Had a great combat session yesterday with the Wildthings.

 

[Marty Ball]

As a matter of interest, what is an "aircraft"? Are kites aircraft? Are clay pidgions? What about frisbies?

I think the Fun Police are about!

I have seen kites engaged in ariel combat on playing fields and parks and at organised events.

I hear what is being said but but if anyone tells me that flying a powered model plane where the only control is by a radio link is safe then they are deluded! anyone with a modicum of sense must accept the fact that there are risks, but it's ok because it's covered by rule (whatever the number)

If Slope Combat is so popular we need to acknowledge that fact and cater for it,

I am sorely vexed at all this namy pamy lefty pinko rules and regulations! Oh dear what would the EU say? It's a lamentable trate the British have that if someone has made a rule it must be carved in stone! I'm pretty sure that when rule (whatever the number) was written, Foam Covered in crossweave tape hadn't been considered to constuct a model! We need to stand up (as a nation) and say "the rules need to looked at" not just about this subject but in general!

My thoughts on killjoys are: Get a life of your own and stop crying about other people enjoying life, If life is to much of a big boys game either toughen up or take up something that dosn't distress you! Sheeesh, how much more of our freedom are we going to allow to be erroded by whineging do-gooders?

[Devon Flyer]

Posted by Martyn Ball on 04/09/2011 19:38:21:

As a matter of interest, what is an "aircraft"? Are kites aircraft? Are clay pigeons? What about frisbies?

I think the Fun Police are about!

I have seen kites engaged in aerial combat on playing fields and parks and at organised events.

I hear what is being said but but if anyone tells me that flying a powered model plane where the only control is by a radio link is safe then they are deluded! anyone with a modicum of sense must accept the fact that there are risks, but it's ok because it's covered by rule (whatever the number)

If Slope Combat is so popular we need to acknowledge that fact and cater for it,

I am sorely vexed at all this namby pamby lefty pinko rules and regulations! Oh dear what would the EU say? It's a lamentable trait the British have that if someone has made a rule it must be carved in stone! I'm pretty sure that when rule (whatever the number) was written, Foam Covered in crossweave tape hadn't been considered to construct a model! We need to stand up (as a nation) and say "the rules need to looked at" not just about this subject but in general!

My thoughts on killjoys are: Get a life of your own and stop crying about other people enjoying life, If life is to much of a big boys game either toughen up or take up something that doesn't distress you! Sheeesh, how much more of our freedom are we going to allow to be eroded by whingeing do-gooders?

 

Couldn't agree more Martyn.

Unfortunately, the powers that be tend to take a different view of things.

 

Edited By Devon Flyer on 04/09/2011 19:49:10

[Zaidy]

As a regular visitor to the Orme, I can say absolutely that NO ONE will target an un-willing flier in my experience.

There has been a number of occasions where people do not wish to participate in a combat session (new to the site or gliding all together or not into it) and they were left to their own devices. But most soon warm up to the idea and can't get enough of combat flying.

All people involved in combat usually have a great time and keep a watchful eye for members of the public and common sense always prevails.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Steve Houghton 1]

I recently heard from a guy in New Zealand who flies combat with foam gliders, mostly chevron type wings, after watching the video I made flying at the Orme and he loved what we do. He told me that in NZ they attach streamers made from crepe to their planes and try to cut them with the winglets.

 

Now here's a story of inconsiderate fliers who last weekend made a trip to my patch, The Bwlch, from somewhere, (I won't say where) on the English south coast.

 

They turned up with all manner of gliders and flew without any consideration for others and managed to trash many of them. My mate waited and waited for a clear slot to fly his new pride and joy, the RCRCM Vector. As soon as he went up, they followed him up and with half a dozen mouldies in the air the inevitable happened and my mate was involved in a head on collision which totally destroyed his model. He confronted the visitors complaining about their attitude but they didn't care and just carried on. My mate is still naturally gutted having lost a plane worth hundreds of £.

 

So, I will stick up for all those other, responsible combat fliers who fly for fun. When I was at the Orme, there were plenty of others flying models other than those being used for combat, and it was easy to see who was involved in that or not and they were NOT targeted. I think Gonzo is over reacting.

[John Privett]

Posted by Steve Houghton 1 on 04/09/2011 20:17:17:

I recently heard from a guy in New Zealand who flies combat with foam gliders, mostly chevron type wings, after watching the video I made flying at the Orme and he loved what we do. He told me that in NZ they attach streamers made from crepe to their planes and try to cut them with the winglets.

 

 

I saw a video of zagis (or similar) with crepe-paper streamers flying combat very recently. I thought it was on here somewhere, or maybe in "the other place"?